Ip'"' 


^S^ 


^^^^^ 


Y^i 


<- 


il 


ii: 

•>  '■,<  f( 


Sec 
=^  \l,  5  u>  \ 


/V/, 


,^/A^ 


/^.^^-^ 


/      6 


7^ 


V 


ESSAYS  AND  REYIEWS. 


BY 


CHARLES    HODGE,   D.D. 


SELECTED  FROM  THE  PRIXCETOiX  REVIEW. 


NEW     YOEK: 
ROBERT   CARTER   &   BROTHERS, 

No.    530    B  K  0  A  D  W  A  Y . 
1857 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1850,  by 

KOBEKT  CARTER  &  BROTHERS, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Southem 
District  of  New  York. 


8TKBE0TTPED  BT  PBINTEP     BY  8.    B.    THOMSON, 

THOUAB    B.     SMITH,  E.     O.     J  E  N  K  I  If  S  ,  BINDER, 

62&84Beekinan-8t.,  N.Y.  28  Frankfort-st,  N.Y.  82  &  84  Beekman-st.,  N.Y. 


CONTENTS. 


Page 
I. — Regexeratiox 1 

II. — Stuart  on  the  Romans 49 

III. — The  Latest  Foiiii  of  In^fideliiy 87 

IV. — Beman  ox  the  Atoxemext 129 

V. — Ground  of  Faith  in  tke  Scuiptcbks 185 

VI. — Theouies  of  the  Church 201 

VII. — Is  the  Church  (jf  Rome  a  part  of  the  Visible  Church? 221 

VIII. — Fixxey"s  Lectures  on  Theology 245 

IX. — Support  of  the  Clergy 285 

X. — BUSHNELL   on   CHRISTIAN   KUUTURE :50a 

XL — Doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church  on  the  Lord's  Supper H41 

XIL — Responsirilities  of  Boards  of  Missions H93 

XIII. — God  in  Christ 4.'!P> 

XIV.— Slavery 47:5 

XV. — Emancipation 513 

XVL — The  Theology  of  the   Intellect  and   that  of  the   Feelings. — 

Article  1 539 

XVlI. — The  Theology  of  the   Intellect  and  that  of  the  Feelings. — 

Article  II 571 

XVIII. — The  Theology  of  the  Intellect  and  that  op  the  Feelings. — 

Article  III 613 


I. 

REGENERATION/ 

VoLTAiKE,  in  one  of  his  historical  works,  sneeringly  inquires, 
"  How  were  the  priests  employed  wliiio  the  Saracens  were  deso- 
lating the  fairest  portion  of  their  church  ?"  "  Disputing,"  he 
answers,  "  whether  Christ  has  one  will  or  two  !"  It  will  be  well, 
if  the  theologians  of  the  nineteenth  century  do  not  furnish  occa- 
sion to  some  future  infidel  historian  for  a  similar  taunting 
remark.  There  is  scarcely  any  subject  in  the  history  of  the 
church  which  is  more  liumiliating  than  that  of  theological  dis- 
cussions of  this  nature.  Tlie  evil  appears  to  have  arisen  early, 
for  Paul,  in  his  Epistles  to  Timothy,  repeatedly  and  earnestly 
exhorts  him  "Dot  to  strive  about  words  to  no  profit,"  but  to 
avoid  "foolisli  questions  which  gender  strifes."  Yet  not  a 
century  has  passed  from  that  day  to  this,  which  has  not  been 
disturbed  and  disgraced  by  disputes  fairly  within  the  apostle's 
description.  That  there  are  serious  evils  attending  controversies 
of  this  character,  no  one  will  deny.  They  bring  discredit  on 
religion  ;  they  alienate  brethren  who  should  live  together  in  love  ; 
they  call  off  the  attention  from  the  practical  duties  of  benevo- 
lence and  piety  ;  and  they  are,  from  their  nature,  destructive  of 
the  spirit  of  true  religion.  These  disputes,  in  nine  cases  out  of 
ten,  turn,  not  on  the  correct  exposition  of  the  Bible,  but  on  the 
decision  of  some  point  in  mental  or  moral  science.  Philosophy, 
instead  of  being  the  handmaid  of  religion,  has  become  the 
mistress  of  theology.  This  is  a  fact  deeply  to  be  lamented. 
The  subjects,  we  admit,  are  so  nearly  allied,  that  they  cannot  be 

'  Published  in  1830,  in  review  of  "  Regeneration  and  the  Manner  of  its  Occurrence. 
A  Sermon  from  John  v.  24.  Preached  at  the  opening  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  in 
Rutger's-street  Church,  on  Tuesday  evening,  October  20,  by  Samuel  H.  Cox,  D.  D., 
Pastor  of  the  Laight-street  Presbyterian  Church." — Princeton  Review. 

1 


2  REGENERATION. 

kept  entirely  distinct ;  still,  theology  might  have,  and  ought  to 
have,  much  less  of  a  philosophical,  and  more  of  an  exegetical 
character  than  it  has  commonly  assumed.  The  predominance  of 
the  former,  over  the  latter  element  in  theology,  has  been  un- 
questionably one  of  the  most  prolific  sources  of.  evil  to  the 
church.  What  is  Pelagianism,  Arminianism,  or  almost  any 
other  ism,  but  a  particular  system  of  religious  philosophy  ?  And 
what  are  the  questions  which  now  alienate  and  divide  Christians 
in  this  country,  but  questions  in  mental  or  moral  science  ?  If  a 
man  tells  you  his  theory  of  virtue,  you  need  ask  no  questions 
about  his  theology.  Hence  it  is  that  these  diversities  of  opinion 
are  in  a  great  measure  confined  to  professed  theologians,  clergy- 
men, or  laymen.  The  views  which  ordinary  Christians,  under 
the  guidance  of  common  sertse  and  sanctified  feeling,  take  of 
divine  "truth,  are,  in  all  ages  and  countries,  very  nearly  the  same. 
Nor  does  it  seem  to  us  correct  to  say,  that  common  sense  is 
nothing  more  than  the  popularized  results  of  philosophical  spec- 
ulations, because  we  find  it  the  same  in  countries  where  entirely 
different  systems  of  philosoj)hy  have  for  ages  prevailed.  Look  at 
Germany  and  England  for  an  illustration.  The  philosophical 
theologians  of  these  countries  differ  toto  ccdo  in  their  views. 
They  have  hardly  a  single  principle  in  common.  But  how  is  it 
with  common  Christians  ?  They  are  as  much  united  in  opinion 
as  they  are  in  feeling.  And  why  ?  Because  their  opinions  are 
formed  from  the  Bible,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit,  and  the 
influence  of  those  essential  and  consequently  universal  principles 
of  our  nature,  which  it  has  been  the  grand  result  of  philosophy 
to  sophisticate  and  pervert.  Is  all.  philosophy  then  to  be  pro- 
scribed ?  By  no  means.  The  very  statements  we  have  made 
demonstrate  its  importance.  If  a  man's  speculative  opinions  do 
thus  influence  his  views  of  religious  truth  and  duty,  it  is  a 
matter  of  unspeakable  moment  that  these  opinions  should  be 
correct.  And,  in  a  multitude  of  cases,  the  only  means  of  pre- 
venting the  evils  which  flow  from  erroneous  principles,  is  to  show 
the  fallacy  of  the  principles  themselves.  Besides,  all  truth  is 
harmonious,  whether  taught  in  the  word  of  God  or  learned  from 
the  constitution  of  our  own  nature,  and  in  itself  there  can  be  no 
subject  more  worthy  of  accurate  knowledge,  than  that  mysterious 
and  immortal  principle  which  was  created  in  the  image  of  God. 
All  this  we  cheerfully  admit.     At  the  same  time  the  undeniable 


REGENERATION.  3 

fact,  that  systems  of  philosophy  have  heen  as  changeable  as  the 
wind  ;  that  each  in  its  turn  has  been  presented,  urged,  and 
adopted  wilJi  the  utmost  confidence  ;  and  each  in  its  measure 
perverted  the  simple  truths  of  the  Bible,  should  teach  us  to  be 
modest.  We  should  learn  to  separate  the  human  from  the 
divine  element  in  our  theology,  and  to  be  careful  not  to  clothe 
the  figments  of  our  own  minds  with  the  awful  authority  of  God, 
and  denounce  our  brethren  for  not  believing  him  when  they  do 
not  agree  with  us.  We  should  learn  not  to  ascribe  to  men  opin- 
ions which,  according  to  our  notions,  may  be  inferred  from  the 
principles  which  they  avow.  This  is  an  impropriety  of  very 
frequent  occurrence,  and  of  which  we  think  we  have  great 
reason  to  complain  in  the  sermon  before  us.  To  state  what 
appears  to  us  to  be  fair  deductions  from  principles  assumed,  as 
arguments  against  them,  is  one  thing  ;  but  to  charge  those  who 
hold  these  principles  with  holding  our  deductions,  is  a  very  dif- 
ferent affair. 

With 'regard  to  the  author  of  this  sermon,  we  can  truly  say 
that  we  entertain  for  him  the  highest  resjject.  We  love  his 
honesty.  We  admire  the  frankness  and  decision  with  which  he 
always  avows  his  opinions.  We  rejoice  to  see  that  there  is  little 
of  that  evil  spirit  in  the  discourse,  which  so  often  converts  inves- 
tigations of  truth  into  angry  disjiutations.  But  while  we  give 
Dr.  Cox  full  credit  for  sincerity,  and  acquit  him  of  entertaining 
any  bad  feeling  toward  his  brethren,  we  still  think  that  he  is 
chargeable  with  grossly  misrepresenting  their  opinions,  and  hold- 
ing them  uj}  to  a  contempt  and  reprobation  due  only  to  his 
acknowledged  caricature.  We  refer  specially  to  page  6  of  the 
Introduction,  where,  after  stating  that  there  are  certain  dogmas, 
"some  of  them  not  proved,  or  even  suspected  by  those  who 
employ  them,"  which  have  a  tendency  "  to  solace  the  sinner  in 
his  distance  from  Christ,"  and  "  excuse  his  disobedience  to  the 
gospel,  and  which  ought  to  be  rejected  as  false  and  ruinous,"  he 
gives  the  following  specifications  : 

"  A  man  has  no  ability  to  do  his  duty. 

"  Where  the  means  of  grace  are  purely  and  abundantly  vouchsafed,  by  the 
sovereign  goodness  of  Providence,  a  man  can  do  nothing  for,  but  can  only 
counteract,  his  own  salvation ;  having  no  ability,  even  if  lie  had  the  inclination, 
to  believe  the  go?pel  and  be  saved. 

"  The  wickedness  of  men  consists  in  physical  defect  or  disorganization  of  the 


4  REGENERATION. 

faculties  of  the  soul,  so  that  total  depravity  and  physical  depravity  are  nearly 
synonymous,  and  both  equally  true. 

"  Eegeneration  is  the  implantation  of  a  certain  kind  of  '  principle  of  hohness,' 
which  is  incapable  of  definition  or  demonstration,  and  has  no  connection  with 
human  consciousness ;  wliich  precedes  all  active  mental  hoUness,  and  is  antece- 
dent also  to  all  '  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit,'  as  specified  in  the  New  Testament,  in 
the  susception  and  sustentation  of  which  the  Creator  is  sole  as  well  as  sovereign 
agent ;  man  no  agent  at  all,  but  only  a  passive  receiver,  an  unconscious  subject 
of  the  mysterious  gi'atuity ;  and  wliich  is  the  happy  contrary  of  a  principle  of 
sin,  which  is  concreated  with  us,  and  is  the  permanent  fund  of  all  our  depravity, 
in  which  also  we  are  passive — though  quite  active  in  exercising  aU  the  wicked- 
ness which  flows  (fuU  copiously)  from  such  an  inserted  fountain,  and  which  h^ 
its  residence  and  location  somewhere  in  the  texture  of  the  soul,  which  is  itself  a 
very  wicked  thing  somehow  physiologically,  in  the  very  nature  of  it,  antecedent 
to  any  agency  at  all  of  ours. 

"Eegeneration  consists  in  some  secret  physical  motion  of  the  soul,  which 
restores  its  dislocated  powers,  and  cures  the  connatural  diseases  of  its  texture ; 
since  the  work  of  the  Creator,  as  such,  is  not  '  good,'  but  lays  the  foundation  in 
the  very  entity  of  the  soul  for  aU  its  overt  wickedness,  and  for  the  necessity  of 
regeneration. 

"  The  soul  is  passive,  entirely  passive,  and  God  the  sole  agent  of  regeneration. 

"  The  means  of  g^-ace,  and  tlie  gospel  itself,  are  in  no  sense  moral  causes  of 
regeneration ;  since  theu'  important  use  is  merely  to  illustrate  the  strength  of  an 
invincible  depravity,  to  make  the  sinner  worse  and  worse,  till  he  is  physically 
regenerated,  and  then  to  signalize  the  prodigious  efiPorts  and  labors  of  Omnipo- 
tence, in  this  department  of  constant  miracle-working: — as  if  there  were  no 
considerable  difference  between  dividing  the  Eed  Sea  symboHcally  by  the  rod 
of  Moses,  and  conciliating  the  human  mind  by  the  revealed  glories  of  the  ever- 
lasting gospel ! 

"  It  is  wrong  to  require  a  sinner  in  the  name  of  God  to  repent  immediately, 
and  believe  the  gospel,  and  to  urge  liim  to  this  as  the  only  way  of  salvation. 

"  The  offer  of  salvation  is  not  made  to  every  hearer ;  or,  if  it  be,  to  accept  it  is 
impracticable,  and  to  require  this  of  the  sinner,  wanton  and  absurd. 

"  If  there  is  a  universal  offer  in  the  gospel,  it  is  founded,  not  on  the  atone- 
ment of  Jesus  Christ  at  all,  but  only  on  the  ministerial  commission;  or  on  human 
ignorance  of  whom  the  elect  are ;  or  it  has  no  moral  foundation ;  or  it  is  only 
man's  ofler  and  not  God's ;  or  it  is  a  matter  of  mere  sovereignty,  and  so  insolu- 
ble ;  or  it  is  an  offer  in  form,  and  in  fact  no  offer  or  overture  at  all;  and  this, 
although  there  is  no  salvation  known  to  the  gospel  but  that  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  as  an  atoning  Saviour. — Prov.  i.  20-33 ;  Luke  xiv.  24 ;  Acts  iv.  12,  xiii. 
26,  46." 

The  doctor  then  says,  "  If  I  have  caricatured  these  dogmas,  I 
have  doue  so  intentionally  ;  but  only  by  representing  them  as 
they  are,  and  making  the  reality  govern  the  appearance."  It  is 
not  probable  that  Dr.  Cox,  in  -svriting  these  paragraphs,  had  any 
one  class  of  theologians  exclusively  in  his  eye  ;  because  some  of 


REGENERATION.  5 

''  these  dogmas  "  are  inconsistent  with  each  other.  We  have  no 
doubt,  however,  that  most  of  what  is  here  stated,  was  intended 
as  an  exhibition  of  the  doctrines  of  the  old  Calvinists  (sit  venia 
verbo).  Our  reason  for  thinking  so  is,  that  we  are  accustomed 
to  see  such,  and  even  still  more  gross  misrepresentations  of  these 
doctrines,  though,  we  acknowledge,  not  often  from  such  men  as 
Dr.  Cox.  It  is,  however,  notorious  that  this  class  of  theologians 
are  constantly  represented  as  maintaining  that  "  man  has  no 
ability,  even  if  he  had  the  inclination,  to  believe  the  gospel  and 
be  saved," — that  man's  depravity  "  is  a  physical  defect," — that 
regeneration  is  "a  physical  change,"  etc.  Representations  have" 
been  made  of  these  doctrines  which  we  had  supposed  no  man, 
who  felt  the  obligation  "  of  interpreting  language  in  conformity 
with  the  known  and  declared  nature  of  the  thing  described," 
could  ever  allow  himself  to  make.  Belonging  as  we  do  to  the 
class,  which  for  the  sake  of  convenience  and  distinction  we  have 
called  old  Calvinists,  we  feel  ourselves  aggrieved  by  such  repre- 
sentations, and  called  upon  to  show  that  no  such  doctrines  can 
be  fahly  imputed  to  the  elder  Calvinists.  It  will  not  be  expected 
that  in  a  single  article  we  should  go  over  the  formidable  list 
presented  by  Dr.  Cox.  We  shall,  for  the  present  at  least,  con- 
fine ourselves  to  the  doctrine  of  this  sermon,  and  show  that  the 
old  standard  Calvinistic  authors  expressly  disclaim  the  opinions 
here  imputed  to  them,  and  that  they  are  not  fairly  deducible 
from  any  of  the  principles  which  they  avow.  Should  we  entirely 
fail  as  to  the  second  point,  it  would  still  be  very  unjust  to  charge 
men  with  holding  doctrines  which  they  constantly  disclaim, 
because  we  consider  them  as  flowing  from  their  principles. 

The  two  main  points  of  Dr.  Cox's  sermon  are,  first,  that 
regeneration  is  a  moral,  in  distinction  from  a  physical  change ; 
and  secondly,  that  it  occurs  in  a  manner  perfectly  accordant  with 
the  active  powers  of  the  soul.  We  use  the  word  physical,  not  as 
synonymous  with  natural,  but  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in 
this  sermon,  implying  something  referring  to  the  substance  or 
essence.  By  physical  regeneration  in  this  sense,  is  intended  a 
change  in  the  essence  or  essential  properties  of  the  soul,  or,  in 
the  language  of  Dr.  Cox,  an  influence  by  which  "  the  connatural 
diseases  in  the  texture  of  the  soul  are  healed."  Our  object  is  to 
show  that  Dr.  Cox  has  misrepresented  the  \'iews  of  his  brethren 
on  this  subject ;  that  they  hold  to  no  change  in  the  substance  of 


6  REGENERATION. 

the  soul  nor  in  any  of  its  essential  properties,  but  unifomily 
teach  that  the  change  is  a  moral  one,  and  takes  place  in  a  manner 
perfectly  congruous  to  the  nature  of  a  rational  and  active  being. 
We  appeal  to  the  language  and  doctrines  of  all  the  old  CaMn- 
istic  divines,  in  support  of  this  assertion. 

Charnock,  in  his  discourse  on  regeneration,  contained  in  Vol. 
II.  of  the  folio  edition  of  his  works,  proposes  in  the  first  place  to 
state  in  reference  to  the  nature  of  this  change,  what  it  is  not.  On 
page  72  he  says,  "  It  is  not  a  removal  or  taking  away  of  the  old 
substance  or  faculties  of  the  soul.  Some  thought  that  the  sub- 
stance of  Adam's  soul  was  corrupted  when  he  sinned,  therefore 
suppose  the  substance  of  his  soul  to  be  altered  when  he  is 
renewed.  Sin  took  not  away  the  essence  but  the  rectitude  ;  the 
new  creation,  therefore,  gives  not  a  new  faculty  but  a  new  qual- 
ity." Who  the  "  some "  were,  to  whom  Charnock  refers  as 
holding  that  the  substance  of  Adam's  s'oul  was  corrupted  by  the 
fall,  we  know  not  ;  all  we  know  is,  that  such  is  not  the  doctrine 
of  any  resjiectable  body  of  Calvinists,  nor  of  any  standard  writer 
on  the  subject.  The  only  man  of  whom  we  have  heard  who 
taught  this  doctrine,  was  Flaccius  Illyricus,  Professor  at  Jena, 
and  a  pupil  of  Luther  ;  but  we  know,  too,  that  his  opinions  on 
this  subject  were  condemned,  almost  without  a  dissenting  voice, 
by  the  reformed  theologians  of  Germany  and  England. 

On  the  73d  page,  Charnock  says  expressly,  "  the  essence  and 
faculties  remain  the  same."  "The  passions  and  affections  are 
the  same  as  to  the  substance  and  nature  of  the  acts  ;  but  the 
difference  lies  in  the  objects."  "  When  a  man  loves  God,  or 
fears  God,  or  loves  man,  or  fears  man,  it  is  the  same  act  of  love 
and  the  same  act  of  fear  ;  there  are  the  same  motions  of  the 
soul,  the  same  substantial  acts  simply  considered,"  etc.  "  This 
new  creation  is  not  a  destruction  of  the  substance  of  the  sou], 
but  there  is  the  same  physical  being,  and  the  same  faculties  in 
all,  and  nothing  is  changed  in  its  substance  as  it  respects  the 
nature  of  man." — P.  85.  We  have  here  a  most  explicit  disa- 
vowal of  the  doctrine  of  physical  regeneration  in  the  sense  in 
which  Dr.  Cox  represents  the  old  Calvinists  as  holding  it. 

As  to  the  manner  in  which  this  work  is  effected,  he  remarks, 
in  the  first  place,  that  "  it  is  a  secret  work,  and  therefore  diffi- 
cult to  explain."  "  Yet,  secondly,  this  is  evident,  that  it  is 
rational,  that  is,  congruous  to  the  essential  nature  of  man.     God 


REGENERATION.  7 

does  not  deal  with  us  as  beasts  or  as  creatures  destitute  of  sense 
but  as  creatures  of  an  intelligent  order.  Who  is  there  that 
believes  in  Christ,  as  heavy  things  fall  to  the  earth,  or  as  beasts 
run  at  the  beck  of  their  sensual  appetites  without  rule  or 
reason  ?" — P.  217.  "  God  that  requires  of  us  a  reasonable  ser- 
vice, would  work  upon  us  by  a  reasonable  operation.  God  therefore 
works  by  the  way  of  a  spiritual  illumination  of  the  understanding, 
in  propounding  the  creature's  happiness  by  arguments  and  reasons; 
and  in  the  way  of  a  sj^iritual  impression  on  the  will,  moving  it 
sweetly  to  embrace  that  hapi^iness,  and  the  means  to  it  which 
he  doth  propose  ;  and  indeed  without  this  work  preceding,  the 
motion  of  the  will  could  never  be  regular." — P.  218. 

In  speaking  more  particularly  of  the  direct  operation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  on  the  will,  his  first  proposition  is,  that  there  is  such 
an  influence;  second,  that  "this  work,  though  immediate,  is 
not  compulsive.  It  is  a  contradiction  for  the  will  to  be  moved 
unwillingly  ;  any  force  upon  it  destroys  its  nature.  It  is  not 
forced  because  it  is  according  to  reason,  and  the  natural  motion 
of  the  creature  ;  the  understanding  proposing  and  the  will  em- 
bracing ;  the  understanding  going  before  with  light,  the  will 
following  after  mth  love."  "  The  will  being  a  rational  faculty, 
cannot  be  wrought  upon  but  rationally." — P.  221. 

The  instrumentality  of  the  truth  in  regeneration  is  strongly 
asserted  by  all  old  Calvinists.  Charnock  says,  "  that  to  make  an 
alteration  in  us  according  to  our  nature  of  understanding,  will, 
and  affections,  it  is  necessary  there  should  be  some  declaration  of 
things  under  those  considerations  of  true,  good,  and  delightful,  in 
the  highest  manner,  to  make  a  choice  change  in  every  faculty  of 
the  soul ;  and  without  this  a  man  cannot  be  changed  as  a 
rational  creature,"  etc. — P.  233.  "  The  word  operates,  first, 
objectively,  as  it  is  a  declaration  of  the  will  of  God,  and  present- 
ing the  objects  of  all  holy  acts  ;  and  secondly  it  has  an  active 
force.  It  is  operative  in  the  hand  of  God  for  sanctification." 
"  The  Spirit  doth  so  edge  the  word  that  it  cuts  to  the  quick, 
discerns  the  very  thoughts,  insinuates  into  the  depths  of  the 
heart,"  etc. — P.  235.  "  To  conclude,  the  promise  in  the  word 
breeds  principles  in  the  heart  suitable  to  itself ;  it  shows  God  a 
Father,  and  raises  up  principles  of  love  and  reverence  ;  it  shows 
Christ  a  Mediator,  and  raises  up  faith  and  desire.  Christ  in  the 
word  conceives  Christ  in  the  heart,  Christ  in  the  word  the  begin- 


8  REGENERATION. 

ning  of  grace,  conceives  Christ  in  the  heart  the  hope  of  glory." — 
P.  236.  The  use  of  the  word  in  regeneration  is  surely,  according 
to  this  view,  something  more  than  "  the  rod  of  Moses  stretched 
out  over  the  Bed  Sea,"  We  presume,  however,  that  the  para- 
graph in  which  Dr.  Cox  denounces  the  opinion  that  the  means  of 
grace  have  no  tendency  to  produce  holiness,  was  designed  for  a 
different  quarter.  Old  Calvinists  have  generally  been  charged 
with  laying  too  much  stress  on  the  use  of  means. 

Charnock  was  by  no  means  singular  in  the  views  here  express- 
ed. Living  as  he  did  in  the  days  of  the  Puritan  ascendancy  in 
England,  the  companion  of  Owen,  Goodwin,  Burgess,  Bates,  and 
many  others  of  the  same  class,  he  was  united  with  them  in 
opinion  as  well  as  in  labors. 

Owen,  in  his  work  on  the  Spirit,  when  speaking  of  regenera- 
tion, lays  down  the  following  proposition  (page  270  of  the  folio 
edition).  "  In  whom  or  toward  whomsoever  the  Holy  Spirit 
puts  forth  his  power,  or  the  acts  of  his  grace  for  their  regenera- 
tion, it  removes  all  obstacles,  overcomes  all  opposition,  and 
infallibly  produces  the  effect  intended."  But  how  is  this  done  ? 
Is  it  by  changing  the  substance  of  the  soul,  or  violating  any  of 
the  laws  of  its  being  ?  The  words  which  immediately  follow, 
and  which  are  intended  to  exjDlain  this  general  proposition,  con- 
tain the  answer.  ''  The  power  which  the  Holy  Spirit  puts  forth 
in  our  regeneration,  is  such  in  its  actings  or  exercise,  as  our 
minds,  will,  and  affections  are  suited  to  be  wrought  upon,  and  to 
be  affected  by,  according  to  their  natures  and  natural  operations. 
He  doth  neither  act  in  them  any  otherwise  than  they  themselves 
are  meet  to  be  moved  and  to  move,  to  be  acted  and  to  act, 
according  to  their  own  nature,  power,  and  ability.  He  draws  us 
with  the  cords  of  a  man,  and  the  work  itself  is  expressed  by  a 
persuading;  'God  persuade  Japhet;"Iwill  aUure  her  into  the 
wilderness  and  speak  comfortably  ;'  for,  as  it  is  certainly  effect- 
ual, so  it  carries  no  more  repugnancy  to  our  faculties  than  a 
prevalent  persuasion  doth."  One  can  hardly  imagine  how  men 
Avho  use  such  langufige  can  be  charged  with  holding  a  "  jDhysical 
regeneration,"  by  which  "  connatural  diseases  of  the  texture  of 
the  soul"  are  cured.  Owen  proceeds  to  say,  secondly,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  "  doth  not  in  our  regeneration  possess  the  mind  with 
any  enthusiastical  impressions  :  but  he  works  m  the  minds  of 
men  on  and  by  their  own  natural  actings,  through  an  immediate 


EEGENERATION.  9 

influence  and  impression  of  Ms  power.  '  Create  in  me  a  clean 
heart,  0  God.'  He  worketh  to  will  and  to  do.  Thirdly,  he 
therefore  offers  no  violence  or  compulsion  to  the  will.  This  that 
faculty  is  not  naturally  capable  to  give  admission  unto.  If  it  be 
compelled  it  is  destroyed."  And  again  on  the  next  page,  "  The 
Holy  Spirit,  who  in  his  jiower  and  operation  is  more  intimate,  as 
it  were,  unto  the  principles  of  our  souls  than  they  are  to  them- 
selves, doth  with  the  preservation  and  in  the  exercise  of  the 
liberty  of  our  wills,  effectually  work  our  regeneration  and  conver- 
sion unto  God.  This  is  the  substance  of  what  we  have  to  plead 
for  in  this  cause,  and  which  declares  the  nature  of  this  work  of 
regeneration,  as  it  is  an  inward  spiritual  work." 

Bates's  view  of  the  manner  in  which  this  change  is  effected,  is 
the  same  with  that  of  Owen.  In  the  fourth  volume  of  his  works 
(octavo  edition),  page  140,  he  says,  "  The  effectual  operation  of 
grace  does  not  violate  the  native  freedom  of  the  will,  but  is 
congruous  to  it.  God's  drawing  is  by  teaching  :  '  every  one  who 
hath  heard  and  learned  of  the  Father  cometh  unto  me.'  When 
the  Author  of  the  gospel  is  a  teacher  of  it,  the  most  stupid  and 
obstinate  sinners  shall  be  convinced  and  obedient."  Again  : 
"  God  draws  sinners  to  himself  'with  the  cords  of  a  man,'  in  a 
rational  way,  without  violence  to  their  faculties,  and  fastens 
them  by  the  bonds  of  love."  In  another  place,  Voh  II.,  page 
298,  he  says,  "  The  Holy  Spirit  does  not  work  grace  in  us,  as  the 
sun  forms  gold  in  the  earth,  without  any  sense  in  ourselves  of  hisi 
operations  :  but  we  feel  them  in  all  our  faculties  congruously  to 
their  nature,  enlightening  the  mind,  exciting  the  conscience, 
turning  the  will,  and  purifying  the  affections." 

The  opinions  of  the  reformed,  or  Calvinistic  divines  of  Germany 
and  Holland,  were  the  same  on  these  points  as  those  of  the 
Calvinists  of  England.  Turrettin,  Theol.  Elenct.  loc.  15,  qu^est. 
4,  §  14,  says,  "Gratiee  efficacis  motio  non  est  simpliciter  physica, 
quia  agitur  de  facultate  morali,  quas  congruenter  naturae  suae 
moveri  debet ;  nee  simpliciter  ethica,  quasi  Deus  objective  solum 
ageret  ct  leni  suasione  uterctur,  quod  pertcndebant  Pelagiani : 
sed  supernaturalis  est  et  divina,  qufe  transcendit  omnia  hasc 
genera."  "  Potens  est,  ne  sit  frustranea ;  suavis  est,  ne  sit 
coacta.  Yis  est  summa  et  inexpugnabilis  ut  vincatur  naturae 
corruptio  et  summa  bene   agendi  impotentia  ac  male  agendi 


10  REGENERATION. 

neccssitas  :  sed  arnica  tamen  et  grata,  qualis  naturam  intelli- 
gentem  et  rationalem  decct." 

The  Synod  of  Dort,  in  order  to  prevent  any  misapprehension 
of  their  views  of  efficacious  grace,  as  though  it  were  inconsistent 
in  its  operation  with  the  rational  and  moral  powers  of  our 
nature,  say  in  reference  to  the  fourth  article  in  dispute  between 
them  and  the  Kemonstrauts,  "  Sicuti  vero  per  lapsuni  homo  non 
desiit  esse  homo,  intellectu  et  voluntate  prajditus,  nee  peccatum, 
quod  universum  genus  humauum  pervasit,  naturam  generis 
humani  sustulit,  sed  depravavit  et  spiritualiter  occidit ;  ita 
etiam  hasc  divina  rcgenerationis  gratia,  non  agit  in  hominibus 
tanquam  truncis  et  stipitibus,  nee  voluntatem  ejusque  proprietates 
toUit,  aut  invitam  violenter  cogit,  sed  spiritualiter,  sanat,  corrigit, 
saaviter  simul  et  potenter  tlectit :  ut  ubi  antea  plene  domina- 
natur  carnis  rebellio  et  resistentia  nunc  regnare  incipiat  prompta 
ac  sincera  spiritus  obedientia  ;  in  quo  vera  et  spiritualis  nostrse 
voluntatis  libertas  consistit." 

Spanheim,  in  his  Elench.  Controv.  cum  August.  Confess.  TheoJ. 
Oper.  torn,  iii.,  col.  909,  after  stating  how  nearly  the  views  of  the 
Lutheran  divines  coincided  with  those  of  Calvinists  on  this  sub- 
ject, says  that  the  difference  which  did  exist  seemed  to  result 
from  a  misapprehension  of  the  Calvinistic  doctrine.  Supponunt 
precario,  he  says,  1.  "  Nos  velle  per  gratiam  insuperabilem, 
motionem  coactam,  violentam,  qualis  trunci,  lapidis,  etc.  2.  Ne- 
gare  nos  resistibilitatem  gratite  respectu  naturte  corruptte,  et 
carnis  Deo  inimica3,  qua  san6  quantum  in  se  est  nimis  resistit." 

Stapfer,  in  his  Institut.  Tlieol.  Polem.,  cap.  iii.,  §  136,  main- 
tains in  unison  with  the  common  mode  of  speaking  among 
Calvinists  of  his  day,  that  there  was  in  regeneration  a  divine 
illumination  of  the  understanding,  and  a  divine  influence  on  the 
will.  What  he  intended  by  these  expressions  he  carefully 
explains.  "  Per  illuminationem  autem  intelligimus  convictionem 
supernaturalem  veritatum  revelatarum,  et  nexus  illarum  dis- 
tinctam  repr^esentationem."  And  this,  he  says,  though  certainly 
producing  conviction,  offers  no  more  violence  to  the  mind  than 
the  demonstration  of  a  proposition  in  geometry.  "  Neque  magis 
(are  his  words),  hominis  libcrtati  obcsse  potest,  ac  illi  aliquid 
derogatur,  si  sole  post  tenebras  redeunte  objecta  circumjacentia 
ipsi  clare  repraesentantur,  aut  si  de  veritate  geometrica  per  illius 
demonstrationem  convincitur."     With  regard  to  the  iniiucnco 


REGENERATION.  H 

which  operates  on  the  will,  he  says,  "  Pono  ita  agit,  ut  homo  in 
determinatione  sua  liber  maneat,  neque  obtorto  quasi  coUo  et 
invitus  trahitur  ;  facit  ut  homo  volens  agat.  Veritatem  tarn 
clare  mentibus  ingerit,  ut  non  possint  non  assentiri,  et  tanta 
motiva  voluntati  suggerit,  ut  non  possit  nolle,  sed  fertur :  Pel- 
lexisti  me  Jehova,  et  pellectus  sum,  fortior  fuisti  me  et  prjeval- 
uisti." — Jer.  xx.  7. 

This  he  asserts,  over  and  over,  is  the  true  Calvinistic  doctrine. 
This  he  does,  not  only  in  his  chaj)ters  on  Pelagianism  and 
Arminianism,  where  he  is  answering  precisely  the  same  objection, 
which  (and  it  is  one  of  the  wonders  of  the  age)  Calvinists  are 
now  urging  against  Calvinism,  viz.,  that  efficacious  grace,  as 
explained  by  them,  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  man  as  a 
rational  and  responsible  creature  ;  but  also  in  his  chapter  De 
Consensu  et  Dissensu  Protestantium,  and  in  his  preliminary 
statement  of  the  general  truths  of  theology. 

We  fear  that  we  have  already  exhausted  the  patience  of  our 
readers,  in  proving  a  point  concerning  which  every  one  acquainted 
with  Calvinistic  writers  must  have  been  satisfied  before  we  began. 
We  hope,  however,  that  our  labor  will  not  be  regarded  as 
altogether  unnecessary  ;  because  when  an  imputation  comes 
from  a  source  in  every  way  so  respectable,  and  in  fact  so  highly 
respected,  the  inference  will  be,  that  in  sober  truth  old  Calvinists 
do  hold,  that  the  texture  of  the  soul  is  diseased  ;  that  its  sub- 
stance is  changed  in  regeneration  ;  that  some  unknown  violence 
to  its  faculties  is  suffered  under  the  Spirit's  influence.  It  is 
proper,  therefore,  that  it  should  be  shown,  that  the  direct  reverse 
of  all  this  is  distinctly  declared  by  them  to  be  their  opinion  ; 
that  they  profess  to  beheve  regeneration  to  be  a  moral  and  not  a 
physical  change  ;  and  that  it  takes  place  without  any  violence 
being  done  to  the  soul  or  any  of  its  laws.  Our  readers,  too,  will 
be  led,  we  trust,  to  think  with  us,  that  there  should  be  some- 
thing more  than  mere  inferential  reasoning  to  justify  ascribing 
to  men  a  set  of  opinions  which  they  constantly  and  earnestly 
disclaim. 

We  are  perfectly  willing  to  admit  that  old  Calvinists,  when 
treating  on  the  subject  of  regeneration,  often  speak  of  a  direct 
and  physical  influence  of  the  Spirit  on  the  soul.  But  in  what 
sense  ?  In  the  sense  in  which  Dr.  Cox  represents  them  as 
holding  physical  regeneration  ?      Far  from  it.      He  says  that 


12  REGENERATION. 

physical  regeneration  and  pliysical  depravity  stand  together. 
He  thus  uses  the  word  as  quahfying  the  eifect  produced.  They 
use  it  to  qualify  the  influence  exerted  in  producing  the  eQect. 
But  what  do  they  mean  when  they  speak  of  a  physical  influence 
being  exerted  on  the  soul  in  regeneration  ?  They  mean  pre- 
cisely what  we  suppose  Dr.  Cox  means,  when  he  speaks  of  "  the 
agency  of  the  Spirit,  apart  from  the  power  of  the  truth,  which  is 
his  instrument." — P.  27.  They  mean  to  assert  that  regenera- 
tion is  not  effected  hy  mere  moral  suasion  ;  that  there  is  some- 
thing more  than  the  simple  presentation  of  truth  and  urging  of 
motives.  The  idea  of  Calvinists  uniformly  was,  that  the  truth, 
however  clearly  presented  or  forcibly  urged,  would  never  produce 
its  full  effect  without  a  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
This  influence  they  maintained  was  supernatural,  that  is,  above 
the  mere  moral  power  of  the  truth,  and  such  as  inffillibly  to 
secure  the  result,  and  yet,  to  use  their  own  illustration,  did  the 
soul  no  more  violence  than  demonstration  does  the  intellect,  or 
persuasion  the  heart.  This  opinion  is  not  confined  to  any  one 
class  of  CaMnists  ;  as  far  as  we  know^  it  is  common  to  them  all. 
We  understand  Dr.  Cox  as  teaching  the  same  doctrine.  In  fact 
we  know  no  Calvinist  who  denies  it.  The  author  of  the  review, 
in  the  last  number  of  the  Christian  Spectator,  of  the  strictures 
of  Dr.  Tyler  on  some  previous  articles  in  that  work,  says,  "  We 
have  never  called  in  question  the  doctrine  of  an  immediate  or 
direct  agency  of  the  Spirit  on  the  soul  in  regeneration."  This 
is  all  the  old  Calvinists  intended  by  physical  influence.  That 
this  assertion  is  correct  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  they  taught, 
as  we  have  seen  above,  that  this  influence  is  perfectly  "  congru- 
ous" to  the  nature  of  the  soul,  doing  it  no  more  violence  than, 
in  the  language  of  Owen,  "  an  efiectual  persuasion  doth ;"  and 
that  it  produces  no  physical  change  in  the  substance  of  the  soul 
or  any  of  its  faculties.  Unless,  therefore,  we  mean  to  interpret 
their  language,  not  according  to  their  clear  and  often  repeated 
statements  of  their  meaning,  but  according  to  the  sense  which  a 
particular  expression  has  attained  among  ourselves,  we  must 
admit  that  no  part  of  the  proof  of  the  charge  Avhich  we 
are  considering  can  be  made  to  rest  on  the  occurrence  of  the 
phrase  "  physical  influence,"  in  their  writings.  But  there  is  still 
further  evidence  that  our  assertion  on  this  subject  is  correct, 
which  is  derived  from  the  fact,  that  it  is  in  controversy  with 


HEGEXER  ATION.  13 

those  who  taught  that  there  was  no  influence  beyond  "  moral 
suasion"  and  "  common  grace"  exerted  in  regeneration,  that  the 
older  writers  maintained  what  they  sometimes  call  a  physical 
influence  of  the  Spirit/ 

Turretin,  in  the  passage  quoted  above,  describing  the  nature 
of  the  influence  exerted  in  regeneration,  says  that  it  is  not  merely 
a  moral  influence,  such  as  the  Pelagians  contended  for,  but 
supernatural,  and  divine  ;  and  immediately  adds,  "  aliquid  de 
ethico  et  physico  participat,"  where  it  is  plain  that  it  is  in 
opposition  to  the  Pelagian  doctrine  that  he  uses  this  expression; 
precisely  as  Dr.  Cox  would  do  the  words  direct  and  immediate. 
When  the  Remonstrants  arose,  they  objected  strongly  to  the 
modes  of  expression  which  had  become  common  among  the 
Reformed  theologians  on  the  subject  of  eflicacious  grace.  This 
led  to  a  more  precise  statement  of  what  their  real  doctrines  were 
on  this  subject,  and  they  uniformly  repelled  the  imputations  of 
their  opponents  that  they  taught  that  this  influence  was  incon- 
sistent with  the  rational  nature  of  the  soul.  They  very  unwill- 
ingly used  even  the  word  irresistible,  which  they  said  was  no 
word  of  their  selection,  but  was  put  upon  them  by  the  Jesuits 
and  Remonstrants.  It  afterward  indeed  became  very  common ; 
but  they  tell  us  they  intended  by  it  nothing  more  than  certainly 
efficacious.  Staj)fer,  cap.  17,  p.  540,  says,  in  answer  to  such 
objections,  when  the  Reformed  speak  of  irresistible  grace,  "  hoc 
volunt,  ita  efficaciter  divinam  gratiam  operari,  ut  hominis  resist- 
entiam  infallibiliter  superet,  lit  suasio  ipsius  tant^  sit  efficaciae 
ut  homo  non  possit  non  velle  summaque  spontaneitate  sequi," 
The  necessity  or  certainty  as  to  the  result  for  which  they  con- 
tended, was  none  other  than  that  for  which  President  Edwards 
and  all  other  Calvinists  contend,  and  which  is  inconsistent  with 
no  other  theory  of  liberty  than  that  of  indifference.  If  any  man 
would  candidly  compare  one  passage  with  another  in  the  wi'itings 
of  old  Calvinists,  and  interpret  their  language  agreeably  to  the 
fair  rules  of  construction,  there  could  be  no  doubt  as  to  their 
meaning,  by  physical  influence,  what  Dr.  Cox,  we  presume, 
means  by  an  "  influence  apart  from  the  truth."  Charnock,  in 
speaking  on  this  subject,  says,  in  the  general,  that  the  work  is 

1  This  expression,  however,  is  by  no  means  so  common  as  that  of  "direct  and 
immediate  influence,"  and  is  so  carefully  guarded  as  to  prevent  any  justifiable 
mistake  as  to  its  meaning 


14  REGENEKATION. 

secret,  yet  "  congruous  to  the  essential  nature  of  the  soul."  He 
then  states  more  particularly,  first,  that  there  is  "an  immediate 
and  supernatural  work  on  the  will :"  as  synonymous  with  this 
expression  he  on  the  next  page  uses  the  words  "jDhysical  opera- 
tion." His  second  proposition  is,  that  "  this  work,  tliough  im- 
mediate, is  not  compulsive  and  by  force."  "  The  will  being  a 
rational  faculty  cannot  be  wrought  upon  but  rationally,"  is  one 
of  his  assertions,  in  explanation  of  his  idea  of  this  immediate 
influence.  "  God  who  knows  how  to  make  a  will  with  a  principle 
of  freedom,  knows  how  to  work  upon  the  will,  without  intrench- 
ing upon  or  altering  the  essential  privilege  he  bestowed  upon 
it,"  is  another.  His  third  proposition  is,  that  this  immediate 
work  "is  free  and  gentle."  "A  constraint,  not  by  force,  hut 
love."  "  It  is  sweet  and  alluring  :  the  Spirit  of  grace  is  called 
the  oil  of  gladness  ;  it  is  a  ready  and  delightful  motion  which 
it  causes  in  the  will  ;  it  is  a  sweet  efficacy,  and  an  efficacious 
sweetness."  Is  this  "to  paralyze  the  soul,  or  to  strike  it  through 
with  a  moral  panic  ?"  Surely  Dr.  Cox  will  regret  having  made 
such  a  representation  of  the  views  of  men  whose  opinions  as  to 
tlie  nature  of  divine  influence  do  not  differ  one  tittle  from  his 
own.  "At  what  time,"  Charnock  goes  on  to  say,  "God  doth 
savingly  work  upon  the  will,  to  draw  the  soul  from  sin  and  the 
world  to  himself,  it  doth  with  the  greatest  willingness,  freedom, 
and  delight,  follow  after  God,  turn  to  him,  close  with  him  and 
cleave  to  him  with  all  the  heart,  and  with  purpose  never  to 
depart  from  him. — Cant.  i.  4.  Draw  me  and  loe  ivill  run  after 
thee  :  drawing' signifies  the  efficacious  power  of  grace  ;  running 
signifies  the  delightful  motion  of  grace  :  the  will  is  drawn,  as  if 
it  would  not  come  ;  it  comes,  as  if  it  were  not  drawn.  His  grace 
is  so  sweet  and  so  strong,  that  he  neither  wrongs  the  liberty  of 
his  creature,  nor  doth  prejudice  his  absolute  power.  As  God 
moves  necessary  causes,  necessarily  ;  contingent  causes,  contin- 
gently ;  so  he  moves  free  agents  freely,  without  offering  violence 
to  then-  natures.  The  Spirit  ghdes  into  the  heart  by  sweet 
illapses  of  grace,  and  \'ictoriously  allures  the  soul.— Hos.  ii.  14.  1 
will  allure  her,  and  speah  to  her  heart ;  not  by  crossing,  but 
changing  the  inclination,  by  the  all  conquering  and  alluring 
charms  of  love,"  etc.,  222.  The  fourth  proposition  is,  that  this 
influence  is  "insuperably  notorious,"  or,  in  other  words,  irresisti- 
ble.     In   what   sense   is   it   irresistible .?       Let   the   followin<i 


REGENERATION.  16 

explanation  from  Charnock  in  tliis  immediate  connection  answer, 
and  prevent  those  brethren  rej)roaching  us  for  a  word,  who  agree 
with  us  as  to  the  thing  intended.  "As  the  demonstration  of  the 
Spirit  is  clear  and  undeniable,  so  the  power  of  the  Spirit  is  sweet 
and  irresistible  ;  both  are  joined. — 1  Cor.  ii.  4.  An  inexpressible 
sweetness  allures  the  soul,  and  an  unconquerable  power  draws 
the  soul ;  there  are  clear  demonstrations,  charming  persuasions, 
and  invincible  efficacy  combined  in  the  work.  He  leaves  not  the 
will  in  indiflerence.  (This  is  what  they  were  arguing  against.) 
If  God  were  the  author  of  faith  only  by  putting  the  will  into 
indiiierence,  though  it  be  determined  by  its  own  proper  liberty, 
why  may  not  he  also  be  said  to  be  the  author  of  unbelief,  if  by 
the  same  liberty  of  indifference  it  be  determined  to  reject  the 
gospel  ?"  "  This  irrcsistibleness  takes  not  away  tlie  liberty  of  the 
will.  Our  Saviour's  obedience  was  free  and  voluntary,  yet 
necessary  and  irresistible."  "  Is  God  not  freely  and  voluntarily 
good,  yet  necessarily  so  ?  He  cannot  be  otherwise  than  good  ; 
he  will  not  be  otherwise  than  good.  So  the  will  is  irresistibly 
drawn,  and  yet  doth  freely  come  to  its  own  happiness."  It  is  per- 
fectly evident,  therefore,  that  nothing  more  was  intended  by  this 
expression  than  what  President  Edwards  and  all  other  Calvinists 
contend  for,  viz.,  moral  or  philosophical  necessity.  Now,  when 
it  is  remembered  that  all  the  expressions  which  we  have  quoted, 
and  much  more  of  the  same  import,  are  used  in  explanation  of 
the  nature  of  that  divine  influence  by  which  regeneration  is 
effected,  we  think  that  our  readers  will  feel  that  the  strongest 
possible  evidence  should  be  required  to  sustain  the  charge 
against  those  who  use  them,  of  holding  doctrines  utterly  incon- 
sistent with  their  most  clearly  expressed  opinions.  We  think 
that  any  candid  man  vnW  acknowledge,  who  should  lake  the 
trouble  to  road  the  writings  of  the  older  Calvinists,  that  they 
held  no  other  doctrines  on  the  subject  of  divine  influence  than  such 
as  are  common  among  all  classes  of  opposers  of  Arminianism. 
Their  "supernatural"  or  "physical"  influence  meant  nothing 
more  than  what  is  now  intended  by  "a  direct  and  immediate 
influence."  Owen,  whose  language  on  this  subject  is  as  strong 
as  that  of  any  writer  with  whom  we  are  acquainted,  states 
clearly,  as  we  have  already  seen,  his  belief  that  the  influence  for 
Avhich  he  contended  is  perfectly  "  congruous  to  the  nature  of  the 
soul."    He  tells  us  also,  page  257,  that  it  is  against  the  Pelagian 


16  REGENERATION. 

theory  that  he  is  arguing  when  he  maintains  that  moral  suasion 
alone  does  not  effect  our  regeneration,  but  that  there  is  a  direct 
agency  of  the  Spirit  in  the  work,  which  is  such  "  as  our  minds, 
wills,  and  affections,  are  suited  to  be  wrought  upon  and  affected 
by,  according  to  their  natures  and  natural  operations." 

But  if  old  Calvinists  held  such  opinions  (and  they  hold  them 
still)  on  "  the  nature  of  regeneration  and  the  mode  of  its  occur- 
rence," where  is  the  difference  between  them  and  Dr.  Cox  ? 
None  in  the  world,  as  far  as  these  general  statements  go.  His 
general  propositions,  that  regeneration  is  a  moral,  and  not  a 
physical  change,  and  that  it  takes  place  in  a  manner  accordant 
to  the  nature  of  the  soul,  are  as  orthodox  as  Owen  or  Charnock 
could  wish  them.  We  take  it  for  granted,  however,  that  Dr. 
Cox  would  think  we  had  treated  him  rather  unhandsomely  thus 
to  convict  him  of  old  orthodoxy.  We  proceed,  therefore,  to  state 
where  the  difference  really  lies.  It  is  simply  this.  All  the  old 
Calvinists,  and  the  great  majority,  we  hope  and  believe,  of  the 
new  school  also,  hold  that  the  result  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  opera- 
tion on  the  soul  is  a  holy  principle  or  disposition  ;  Dr.  Cox  says, 
if  we  understand  him,  that  the  result  is  a  holy  act.  This  is  the 
whole  ground  of  debate,  and  to  lookers  on  it  may  appear  rather 
too  narrow  to  be  worth  disputing  about.  Dr.  Cox,  however, 
seems  to  think  that  this  is  a  subject  of  vital  importance,  affecting 
deeply  our  views  of  the  whole  system  of  divine  truth,  and  our 
manner  of  preaching ;  involving  the  high  questions  of  the 
grounds  of  man's  accountability,  the  nature  of  sin  and  holiness, 
and  of  human  liberty.  And  here  we  are  sorry  to  say  we  agree 
with  him.  We  are  afraid  that  this  is  a  turning  point.  We  do 
not  see  how  it  is  possible  to  hold  together  the  tattered  shreds  of 
Calvinism,  if  this  ground  be  assumed.  Is  Calvinism,  then,  a 
mere  metaphysical  system  ?  We  think  not.  But  there  are  some 
metaphysical  opinions  utterly  inconsistent  with  it ;  that  indiffer- 
ence is  necessary  to  the  freedom  of  the  will  is  one,  and  that 
morality  consists  in  acts  only,  we  fear,  is  another. 

AU  the  grounds  that  we  have  for  supposing  that  Dr.  Cox  holds 
this  latter  opinion,  is  found  in  the  pamphlet  under  review.  And 
even  here  it  is  not  distinctly  asserted  ;  but  it  seems  to  be  con- 
stantly implied,  and  to  be  the  foundation  of  all  that  is  peculiar 
in  the  sermon  or  introduction.  The  principle  assumed  is,  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  soul  but  its  substance,  with  its  essential 


REGENEEATION.  17 

attributes,  and  its  acts.  Therefore,  if  regeneration  be  not  a 
change  in  its  acts,  it  must  be  a  change  in  its  substance.  If  sin 
be  not  an  act,  then  it  is  a  substance,  "  an  entity,"  "  a  disease 
of  the  texture  of  the  soul."  This,  we  take  it,  is  the  ground  of 
the  imputation  that  Calvinists  believe  in  physical  depravity  and 
physical  regeneration  ;  for  if  this  principle  be  not  assumed, 
there  is  not  even  the  slender  and  insufficient  ground  of  these 
doctrines  being  deducible,  in  the  author's  opinion,  from  Calvin- 
istic  principles,  to  justify  the  charge.  Besides,  every  one  knows 
that  this  is  the  ground  upon  which  this  charge  has  been  made 
before,  in  a  manner  far  more  offensive  and  unfair  than  Dr.  Cox  is 
capable  of  making  it.  It  is  on  this  ground,  also,  we  presume, 
that  Dr.  Cox  maintains  that  the  soul  is  as  active  in  regeneration, 
as  in  repentance  or  the  exercise  of  faith.  And  it  is  on  this 
ground,  we  suppose,  that  he  ridicules  the  idea  of  regeneration 
being  the  production  of  a  holy  principle  in  the  soul,  "  the  happy 
contrary,"  as  he  calls  it,  "  of  a  principle  of  sin,  which  is  con- 
created  with  us."  This  view  of  the  doctrine  of  regeneration 
(that  it  is  the  production  of  a  holy  principle),  he  says,  can 
"  command  the  confidence  of  no  well  disciplined  mind"  (rather 
a  bold  assertion,  by  the  way),  and  then  adds,  "  By  holy  prin- 
ciple I  mean  love  to  God,  and  not  anything  antecedent  to  it ; 
and  by  love  to  God,  I  mean  loving  him ;  and  in  that  the  subject 
is  active." 

Dr.  Cox,  we  believe,  pins  his  faith  to  no  man's  sleeve,  and  is 
the  follower  of  no  party.  His  opinions  are  his  own  ;  but  what 
they  are  we  pretend  not  to  know,  further  than  they  are  developed 
in  this  discourse.  He  has  here  brought  forward  the  charge 
against  many  of  his  brethren,  whom  he  loves,  and  who  love  him, 
of  believing  in  physical  depravity  and  physical  regeneration.  On 
what  grounds  he  rests  the  charge  we  have  no  means  of  ascertain- 
ing, but  from  the  opinions  advanced  in  this  discourse.  We  are 
anxious  to  show,  that,  as  far  as  old  Calvinists  are  concerned,  the 
imputation  is  unfounded.  And  we  think  that  we  have  shown, 
to  the  satisfaction  of  every  candid  reader,  that  these  doctrines 
are  constantly  and  explicitly  disclaimed  by  this  class  of  theolo- 
gians. When  it  is  asserted,  therefore,  in  the  face  of  such  posi- 
tive declarations  to  the  contrary,  that  they  do  entertain  these 
opinions,  it  can  only  be  on  the  ground  that  they  are  fair  infer- 
ences from  the  principles  which  they  avow.     This,  though  a  very 


18  REGENERATION. 

improper  ground  for  a  direct  imputation,  is  all,  we  are  persuaded, 
that  can  exist.  How  Dr.  Cox  would  endeavor  to  make  it  appear 
that  these  are  fair  inferences  we  do  not  know,  and  therefore  do 
not  wish  to  be  considered,  in  our  further  remarks  on  this  subject, 
as  having  reference  to  Dr.  Cox's  theological  opinions  any  further 
than  they  are  distinctly  avowed  in  this  sermon.  Our  object  is 
simply  this  :  to  endeavor  to  show  that  the  Calvinistic  doctrine, 
that  regeneration  consists  in  the  production  of  a  holy  habit  or 
principle  in  the  soul,  fitting  and  disposing  it  to  holy  acts,  is  not 
liable  to  the  charge  here  advanced. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  take  up  much  time  or  space  in 
proving  that  the  doctrine  of  regeneration,  as  just  stated,  is  that 
which  is  held  by  old  Calvinists.  Charnock,  page  85,  vol.  ii., 
says,  "  This  new  creation  consists  in  gracious  qualities  and  habits 
which  beautify  and  dispose  the  soul  to  act  righteously  and 
holily."  Owen  says  the  new  creation  is  "  an  habitual  holy  prin- 
ciple wrought  in  us  by  God,  and  bearing  his  image,"  or,  as  in  the 
next  sentence,  "  a  divine  supernatural  principle  of  spiritual 
actions  and  operations." 

We  prefer,  however,  referring  to  the  statements  of  a  few  of 
the  theologians  of  our  own  country,  some  of  whom  do  not  belong 
to  the  class  which,  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  we  have  called 
old  Calvinists.  President  Edwards  not  only  admits  that  moral 
principles  or  habits  may  and  must  exist  in  the  soul  prior  (in  the 
order  of  nature)  to  moral  action,  but  his  whole  system  of  practical 
theology,  as  it  seems  to  us,  rests  on  this  foundation.  The  great 
fundamental  principle  of  his  work  on  the  affections  is  this  :  All 
gracious  or  spiritual  affections  presuppose  and  arise  from  spiritual 
views  of  divine  truth.  These  views  the  natural  man  neither  has, 
nor  can  have,  while  he  remains  such.  Hence  arises  the  necessity 
of  such  a  change  being  wrought  in  the  state  of  the  soul,  that  it 
can  perceive  the  real  beauty  and  excellence  of  divine  things. 
This  change  consists  in  imparting  to  the  soul  what  he  calls  "  a 
new  sense,"  or  a  new  taste,  or  relish,  or  principle,  adapted  to  the 
perception  and  love  of  spiritual  excellence.  Were  we  to  attempt 
to  exhibit  all  the  evidence  which  might  be  adduced  in  proof  of 
the  fact  that  his  views  were  such  as  we  have  represented,  we 
should  be  obliged  to  quote  a  great  part  of  the  work  just  men- 
tioned. We  refer  the  reader  especially  to  what  he  says  on  the 
first  and  fourth  signs  of  gracious  affections.     With  regard  to  the 


REGENERATION.  19 

nature  of  regeneration,  we  quote  only  a  single  passage.  After 
having  stated  that  the  exercises  of  the  true  Christian  are  specific- 
ally different  from  those  of  unsanctified  men,  he  infers  that  if 
the  exercises  are  different,  the  principle  whence  they  proceed 
must  be  different,  or  there  must  be,  "as  it  were,  a  new  spiritual 
sense,  or  a  principle  of  new  kind  of  perception  or  spiritual  sensa- 
tion." And  he  hence  explains  why  it  is  that  "  the  work  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  regeneration  is  often,  in  Scripture,  compared  to 
giving  a  new  sense,  giving  eyes  to  see,  and  ears  to  hear,  unstop- 
ping the,  ears  of  the  deaf,  and  opening  the  eyes  of  them  that 
were  born  blind,  and  turning  them  from  darkness  unto  light." 
The  nature  of  this  "  new  sense"  he  thus  explains : 

"  This  new  sense,  and  the  new  dispositions  that  attend  it,  are 
no  new  faculties,  but  are  new  principles  of  nature.  I  use  the 
word  principles,  for  the  want  of  a  word  of  more  determinate  sig- 
nification. By  a  principle  of  nature,  in  this  place,  I  mean  that 
foundation  which  is  laid  in  nature,  either  old  or  new,  for  any 
particular  kind  or  manner  of  exercise  of  the  faculties  of  the  soul ; 
or  a  natural  habit,  or  foundation  for  action,  giving  a  person 
ability  and  disposition  to  exert  the  faculties  in  exercises  of  such 
a  certain  kind  ;  so  that  to  exert  the  faculties  in  that  kind  of  ex- 
ercises, may  be  said  to  be  his  nature.  So  this  new  spiritual 
sense  is  not  a  new  faculty  of  understanding,  but  it  is  a  new  foun- 
dation laid  in  the  nature  of  the  soul,  for  a  new  kind  of  exercises 
of  the  same  faculty  of  understanding.  So  that  new  holy  dis- 
position of  the  heart  that  attends  this  new  sense,  is  not  a  new 
faculty  of  the  will,  but  a  foundation  laid  in  the  nature  of  the 
soul  for  a  new  kind  of  exercises  of  the  same  faculty  of  will.  The 
Spirit  of  God,  in  all  his  operations  on  the  minds  of  natural  men, 
only  moves,  impresses,  assists,  improves,  or  some  way  acts  upon 
natural  principles,  but  gives  no  new  spiritual  principles."* 

We  have  never  met  with  a  stronger  or  more  formal  statement 
of  the  doctrine  which  we  are  endeavoring  to  support,  than  is 
found  in  this  passage.  And  it  should  be  considered  that  this  is 
not  a  passing  remark  on  the  part  of  President  Edwards,  or  the 
statement  of  an  isolated  opinion,  but  it  is  a  fundamental  princi- 
ple of  his  whole  theology,  as  we  understand  it.  Take  this  away, 
and  his  whole  theory  of  original  righteousness,  original  sin,  of 
the  nature  of  holiness,  and  the  nature  of  sin,  and  of  the  liberty 
*  Treatise  concerning  Religious  Affections,  pp.  231,  232.     Elizabethtown  edition,  1787. 


20  BEGENERATION, 

of  the  will,  go  with  it.  Whether  his  views  on  these  subjects  are 
correct,  although  the  main  question,  is  one  thing,  but  that  he 
really  entertained  the  opinion  here  so  clearly  expressed,  we  won- 
der that  any  man  should  evier  have  doubted.  We  trust  that  re- 
spect for  the  memory  of  President  Edwards,  and  the  obligation 
"  to  interpret  language  according  to  the  known  and  declared 
nature  of  the  thing  described,"  vsdll  prevent  any  one  saying,  that 
he  beheved  that  "  this  new  sense"  is  an  entity,  or  "  this  founda- 
tion" for  moral  exercises  is  "  something  inserted  in  the  soul," 
"  an  agent  within  an  agent,"  etc,  etc. 

Dr.  Bellamy  seems  to  teach  the  same  doctrines  as  President 
Edwards  with  regard  to  spiritual  bhndness,  the  necessity  of 
divine  illumination  prior  to  the  exercise  of  any  holy  affections, 
and  the  nature  of  regeneration.  In  the  second  volume  of  his 
works,  page  502,  he  says,  "  In  regeneration  there  is  a  new,  divine, 
and  holy  taste  begotten  in  the  heart,  by  the  immediate  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit."  And  on  the  opposite  page,  "  The  idea  of 
a  natural  beauty  supposes  an  internal  sense,  implanted  by  our 
Creator,  by  which  the  mind  is  capacitated  to  discern  such  kind  of 
beauty."  "And  that  the  idea  of  spiritual  beauty  supposes 
an  internal  spiritual  sense,  communicated  to  the  soul  by 
the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  work  of  the  new  creation,  is  clearly 
illustrated  and  proved  by  a  late  divine,  whose  praise  is  in  all  the 
Churches."  He  here  refers  his  readers  to  Edwards  on  Religious 
Affections. 

Dr.  D wight  taught  the  same  doctrine,  and  that  clearly  and 
definitely.  In  his  discourse  on  the  nature  of  regeneration,'  he 
says,  "  This  change  of  heart  consists  in  a  relish  for  spiritual  ob- 
jects, communicated  to  it  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
That  "  this  relish"  was  antecedent,  according  to  his  view,  to  all 
holy  acts,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  because  he  expressly  asserts  it, 
and  because  his  arguments  go  to  prove  it.  What  he  calls  "  a 
relish  for  spiritual  objects,"  he  elsewhere  calls  a  holy  disposition, 
and  refers  to  the  case  of  Adam  for  an  illustration  of  its  nature. 
"  When  God  created  Adam,"  he  remarks,  "  there  was  a  period 
of  his  existence  after  he  began  to  be,  antecedent  to  that  in  which 
he  exercised  the  first  vohtion.  Every  man  who  beHeves  the 
mind  to  be  something  besides  ideas  and  exercises,  and  does  not 
admit  the  doctrine  of  casualty,  will  acknowledge  that  in  this 

*  Works,  vol.  ii.,  p.  418. 


EEGENERATION.  21 

period  the  mind  of  Adam  was  in  such  a  state,  that  he  was  pro- 
penee  to  the  exercise  of  virtuous  volitions  rather  than  that  of 
sinful  ones.  This  state  of  mind  has  been  commonly  styled  dis- 
position, temper,  inchnation,  heart,  etc.  In  the  Scriptures  it 
usually  bears  the  last  of  these  names.  I  shall  take  the  liberty 
to  call  it  disposition.  This  disposition  in  Adam  was  the  cause 
whence  his  virtuous  volitions  proceeded  ;  the  reason  why  they 
were  virtuous  and  not  sinful.  Of  the  metaphysical  nature  of  this 
cause  I  am  ignorant ;  but  its  existence  is,  in  my  view,  certainly 
proved  by  its  effects."'  Again,  on  the  same  page,  "  In  regenera- 
tion, the  very  same  thing  is  done  by  the  Spirit  of  Grod  for  the 
soul,  which  was  done  for  Adam  by  the  same  Divine  Agent  at  his 
creation.  The  soul  of  Adam  was  created  with  a  relish  for  spirit- 
ual objects.  The  soul  of  every  man  who  becomes  a  Christian  is 
renewed  by  the  communication  of  the  same  relish.  In  Adam 
this  disposition  produced  virtuous  volitions.  In  every  child  of 
Adam,  who  becomes  the  subject  of  virtue,  it  produces  the  same 
effects."  The  same  idea  is  expressed,  if  possible,  even  more 
formally  in  the  same  volume,  page  451,  where,  among  other 
things  equally  explicit,  he  says  that  by  this  disposition  he  in- 
tends "  the  cause,  which  in  the  mind  of  man  produces  all  vir- 
tuous affections  and  volitions."  The  same  doctrine  is  repeatedly 
taught  in  other  passages  of  his  works,  as  in  the  sermons  on  the 
Probation  of  Man,  vol.  i.,  394,  on  the  Fall,  410, 413,  on  Deprav- 
ity as  derived  from  Adam,  etc. 

From  various  passages  which  occur  in  the  pamphlet  of  Dr. 
Tyler,  already  mentioned,  we  infer  that  he  holds  the  same  doc- 
trine. The  same  principle  (that  moral  disposition  may  exist  an- 
tecedently to  all  moral  acts)  is  also  frequently  and  clearly 
asserted  by  Dr.  Woods,  of  Andover,  in  his  controversy  with  Dr. 
Ware.  We  refer  to  the  opinions  of  these  distinguished  men,  to 
show  how  united  Calvinists,  old  and  new,  are  in  their  views  on 
this  point,  and  that  if  the  charge  of  believing  in  physical  de- 
pravity and  physical  regeneration  be  sustained,  it  lies  on  almost 
the  whole  Calvinistic,  and  indeed  on  the  whole  Christian  world. 
Still  the  main  question  recurs — is  the  charge  well  founded  ? 

The  main  principle,  as  before  stated,  which  is  assumed  by 
those  who  make  this  charge  is,  that  we  can  only  regard  the  soul 
as  to  its  substance  on  the  one  hand,  and  its  actions  on  the  other. 
If,  therefore,  there  be  any  change  wrought  in  the  soul  other  than 


22  KEGENER  ATION. 

of  its  acts,  it  must  be  a  physical  change.  And  if  any  tendency, 
either  to  sin  or  holiness,  exist  prior  to  choice,  it  is  a  positive  ex- 
istence, a  real  entity.  Thus  the  charge  of  physical  depravity 
and  physical  regeneration  is  fairly  made  out.  We  are  constrained 
to  confess,  that  if  the  j)remises  are  correct,  the  conclusions,  re- 
volting as  they  are,  and  aifecting,  as  they  do,  the  fair  names  of 
so  large  a  portion  of  the  Christian  church,  are  valid.  The  prin- 
ciple itself,  however,  we  believe  to  be  a  gratuitous  assumption. 
It  is  inconsistent  with  the  common,  and  as  we  believe,  correct 
idea  of  habits,  both  connatural  and  acquired.  The  word  habit 
(habitus)  was  used  by  the  old  writers  precisely  in  the  same  sense 
as  "  princijjle"  by  President  Edwards,  as  explained  above,  or 
disposition,  as  used  and  explained  by  President  Dwight.  That 
there  are  such  habits  or  dispositions  which  can  be  resolved  neither 
into  "  essential  attributes"  nor  "  acts/'  we  maintain  to  be  the 
common  judgment  of  mankind.  Let  us  take  for  illustration  an 
instance  of  an  acquired  habit  of  the  lowest  kind,  the  skill  of  an 
artist.  He  has  a  soul  with  the  same  essential  attributes  as  other 
men  ;  his  body  is  composed  of  the  same  materials  ;  and  the  same 
law  regulates  the  obedience  of  his  muscular  actions  to  his  mind. 
By  constant  practice  he  has  acquired  what  is  usually  denomi- 
nated skill ;  an  ability  to  go  through  the  processes  of  his  art, 
with  greater  facility,  exactness,  and  success  than  ordinary  men. 
Take  this  man  while  asleep  or  engaged  in  any  indifferent  occupa- 
tion, you  have  a  soul  and  body  not  differing  in  any  of  their 
essential  attributes  from  those  of  other  men.  Still  there  is  a 
difference.  What  is  it  .^  Must  it  be  either  "a  real  existence, 
an  entity,"  an  act  or  nothing  ?  It  cannot  be  "  an  entity,"  for  it 
is  acquired,  and  it  will  hardly  be  maintained  that  a  man  can 
acquire  a  new  essential  attribute.  Neither  is  it  an  act,  for  the 
man  has  his  skill  when  it  is  not  exercised.  Yet  there  is  certainly 
"  something"  which  is  the  ground  of  certainty,  that  when  called 
to  go  through  the  peculiar  business  of  his  art,  he  will  do  it  with  an 
ease  and  rapidity  impossible  for  common  men.  It  is  as  impos- 
sible not  to  admit  that  this  ground  or  reason  exists,  in  order  to 
account  for  the  effect,  as  it  is  not  to  admit  the  existence  of  the 
soul  to  account  for  its  exercises.  By  constant  practice,  a  state 
of  mind  and  body  has  been  produced  adapted  to  secure  these  re- 
sults, and  which  accounts  for  their  character.  But  this  is  the 
definition  of  principle  or  habit  as  given  above.     A  single  circum- 


REGENERATION.  23 

stance  is  here  wanting  which  is  found  in  other  "  habits,"  and 
that  is,  there  is  not  the  tendency  or  proneness  to  those  particular 
acts  to  which  this  state  of  mind  is  adapted.  This  difference, 
however,  arises  not  from  any  difference  in  the  "  habits"  them- 
selves, but  from  the  nature  of  the  faculties  in  which,  so  to  speak, 
they  inhere.  A  principle  in  the  will  (in  its  largest  sense,  includ- 
ing aU  the  active  powers),  is  not  only  a  state  of  mind  adapted 
to  certain  acts,  but  prone  to  produce  them.  This  is  not  the 
case,  at  least  to  the  same  degree,  with  intellectual  habits.  Both 
classes,  however,  come  within  the  definition  given  by  President 
Edwards  and  Dr,  Dwight — "  a  state  of  mind,"  or  "  foundation 
for  any  particular  kind  of  exercise  of  the  faculties  of  the  soul." 
The  same  remarks  may  be  made  with  regard  to  habits  of  a 
more  purely  intellectual  character,  A  man,  by  devoting  him- 
self to  any  particular  pursuit,  gradually  acquires  a  facility  in 
putting  forth  the  mental  exercises  which  it  requires.  This  im- 
plies no  change  of  essence  in  the  soul  ;  and  it  is  not  merely  an 
act,  which  is  the  result  of  this  practice.  The  result,  whatever 
it  is,  is  an  attribute  of  the  man  under  all  circumstances,  and 
not  merely  when  engaged  in  the  exercises  whence  the  habit  was 
acquired. 

But  to  come  nearer  to  the  case  in  hand.  We  say  a  man  has  a 
malignant  disposition,  or  an  amiable  disposition.  What  is  to  be 
understood  by  these  expressions  ?  Is  it  merely  that  he  often  in- 
dulges malignant  or  amiable  feelings  ?  or  is  it  not  rather  that 
there  is  an  habitual  proneness  or  tendency  to  their  indulgence  .^ 
Surely  the  latter.  But,  if  so,  the  principle  stated  above,  that 
we  can  regard  the  soul  only  as  to  its  substance  or  its  actions, 
cannot  be  correct.  For  the  result  of  a  repetition  of  acts  of  the 
same  kind  is  an  abiding  tendency,  which  is  itself  neither  an  act 
(emmanent  or  immanent)  nor  an  "  entity."  Here,  then,  is  the 
soul  with  its  essential  attributes,  and  habitual  tendency  to  cer- 
tain exercises,  and  the  exercises  themselves.  The  tendency  is 
not  an  act,  nor  an  active  state  of  the  feelings  in  question ;  for  it 
would  be  a  contradiction  to  say  that  a  man  whose  heart  was 
glowing  with  parental  affection,  or  filled  for  the  time  with  any 
other  amiable  feeling,  had  at  the  same  moment  the  malignant 
feelings  in  an  active  state,  although  there  might  exist  the  great- 
est proneness  to  their  exercise.  We  have  seen  no  analysis  of 
such  dispositions  which  satisfies  us  that  they  can  be  reduced  to 


24  REGENERATION. 

acts.  For  it  is  essential  to  the  nature  of  an  act  that  it  should 
be  a  matter  of  consciousness.  This  is  true  of  those  which  are  im- 
manent acts  of  the  will,  or  ultimate  choices  (by  which  a  fixed 
state  of  the  affections  is  meant  to  be  expressed),  as  well  as  of  all 
others.  But  a  disposition  or  principle,  as  explained  above,  is  not 
a  matter  of  consciousness.  A  man  may  be  aware  that  he  has  a 
certain  disposition,  as  he  is  aware  of  the  existence  of  his  soul, 
from  the  consciousness  of  its  acts,  but  the  disposition  itself  is 
not  a  subject  of  direct  consciousness.  It  exists  when  the  man  is 
asleep  or  in  a  swoon,  and  unconscious  of  anything.  Neither  can 
these  habits  be  with  any  propriety  called  a  choice,  or  permanent 
affection.  For  in  many  cases  they  are  a  mere  proneness  to  acts 
which  have  their  foundation  in  a  constitutional  principle  of  the 
mind.  Our  object  at  present  is  merely  to  show,  that  we  must 
admit  that  there  are  mental  habits  which  cannot  be  resolved 
either  into  essential  attributes  of  the  soul,  fixed  preferences,  or 
subordinate  acts  ;  and  consequently,  that  those  who  believe  in 
dispositions,  prior  to  all  acts,  do  not  necessarily  maintain  that 
such  dispositions  are  of  the  essence  of  the  soul  itself.  If  it  be 
within  the  compass  of  the  divine  power  to  produce  in  us  that, 
which  by  constant  exercise  we  can  produce  in  ourselves,  then  a 
holy  principle  or  habit  may  be  the  result  of  the  Spirit's  in- 
fluence in  regeneration,  without  any  physical  change  having  been 
wrought. 

But  it  is  not  only  objected,  that  regeneration  is  a  physical 
change,  if  anything  beyond  a  change  in  the  exercises  of  the  soul 
is  effected  ;  but  it  is  said,  that  the  thing  contended  for  is  utterly 
unintelligible,  incapable  of  definition  or  explanation.  We  are 
ready  to  acknowledge  that  it  admits  of  no  other  explanation 
than  that  which  is  derived  from  stating  its  effects,  and  referring 
to  cases  of  analogous  kind.  There  is  in  all  men  a  social  princi- 
ple, as  it  is  called,  which  is  something  else  than  a  desire  to  live 
in  society,  because  it  is  connatural^  as-'  may  be  inferred  from  its 
universality ;  there  is  a  tendency  hit-  all  men  to  love  their  chil- 
dren, which  is  something  besides-loving  them  ;  there  is  a  tendency 
in  man  also  to  sympathize  in  the  sufferings  of  others,  etc.  It 
may  be  said  these  are  all  constitutional  tendencies  implanted  in 
our  nature.  This  is  very  true  ;  but  does  saying  this  enable  us  to 
understand  their  natm-e  ?  May  it  not  be  objected  to  those  who 
employ  this  language,  You  are  using  words  without  meaning ; 


,  BEGENERATION.  25 

what  do  you  know  of  a  social  principle  distinct  from  the  actual 
desire  to  live  in  society,  or  prior  to  its  exercise  ?  What  idea  can 
you  form  of  a  principle  of  self-love,  excepting  actually  loving 
one's-self  ?  Are  we  then  to  deny  that  there  are  any  such  orig- 
inal propensities  or  tendencies  as  these  implanted  in  our  nature, 
because  we  cannot  directly  conceive  of  them  ?  Yet  Dr.  Cox 
says,  in  reference  to  this  subject,  "  By  holy  principle,  /  mean 
love  to  God,  and  by  love  to  God  I  mean  actually  loving  him." 
On  the  same  principle,  he  might  deny  the  existence  of  any  of  the 
original  dispositions  or  tendencies  of  the  soul.  For  they  are  as 
incapable  of  being  defined,  as  the  holy  principle  which  is  pro- 
duced in  regeneration.  The  soul  itself  is  in  the  same  predica- 
ment. We  know  nothing  of  it  but  from  our  consciousness  of  its 
acts.  And  if  the  objection  which  we  are  now  considering  be 
valid  against  the  existence  of  principles  prior  to  acts,  then  it  is 
valid  against  the  existence  of  the  soul.  We  are  conscious  only 
of  its  exercises  ;  and  therefore  some  philosophers  and  theologians 
tell  us  we  are  not  authorized  to  go  any  further.  The  existence 
of  a  substance  apart  from  the  exercises  is  not  necessary  to  ac- 
count for  their  existence,  and  therefore  is  a  gratuitous  assump- 
tion. An  assumption,  too,  of  the  being  of  something  which  we 
are  incapable  of  defining,  explaining,  or  even  conceiving.  The 
reply  which  Dr.  Cox  would  make  to  this  reasoning,  is  probably 
the  same  that  we  should  be  disposed  to  make  to  his  objection 
against  the  existence  of  holy  principles  prior  to  holy  acts.  For 
the  mind  as  instinctively  seeks  a  reason  for  the  choice  which  the 
soul  makes  in  loving  God,  as  it  does  for  the  various  ideas  and  ex- 
ercises of  which  it  is  constantly  conscious.  And  we  should  pro- 
bably be  as  little  satisfied  with  the  reasons  which  Dr.  Cox  could 
assign  to  account  for  this  choice,  as  he  would  be  with  those  of 
the  defenders  of  the  exercise  scheme  to  account  for  these  exer- 
cises without  resorting  to  a  thinking  substance.  If  he  were  to 
say,  that  the  effect  is  produced  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  should 
answer  that  this  can  only  be  done  in  one  of  three  ways  that  we 
can  conceive  of.  First,  either  by  his  direct  agency  producing  the 
choice,  in  which  case  it  would  be  no  act  of  ours  ;  or,  secondly,  by 
addressing  such  motives  to  our  constitutional  and  natural  princi- 
ple of  self-love  as  should  induce  us  to  make  the  choice,  in  which 
case  there  would  be  no  morahty  in  the  act ;  or,  thirdly,  by  pro- 
ducing such  a  relish  for  the  divine  character,  that  the  soul  as 


26  BEGENERATION, 

spontaneously  and  immediately  embraces  God  as  its  portion,  as 
it  rejoices  in  the  perception  of  beauty.  The  thing  contended  for 
is  not  more  unintelligible  than  a  hundred  things  of  like  nature. 
Taste  is  the  ready  perception  and  quick  feeling  of  natural  beauty. 
That  is,  these  are  its  effects.  But  no  one  can  directly  conceive 
of  itj  as  it  is  an  attribute  of  the  mind,  either  original  or  acquired. 
It  is  absolutely  certain,  however,  that  the  man  who  does  thus 
readily  perceive  and  feel  the  beauty  of  natural  objects,  has  a 
quality  of  mind  which  a  clown  does  not  possess.  And  we  should 
be  astonished  to  hear  any  one  maintain  that  there  was  no  such 
thing  as  taste,  but  the  exercise.  "  By  taste  I  mean  the  love  of 
beauty,  and  by  love  of  beauty  I  mean  actually  loving  it,  and 
that  is  an  act  and  not  a  principle."  But  why  does  one  man  see 
and  feel  a  beauty  in  certain  objects,  when  others  do  not  ?  Is 
there  no  difference  between  the  clown  and  the  man  of  refinement, 
but  in  their  acts  ?  Is  any  man  satisfied  by  being  told  that  one 
delights  in  beauty,  and  the  other  does  not ;  that  it  is  in  vain  to 
ask  why  ;  the  fact  is  enough,  and  the  fact  is  all ;  there  is  no  dif- 
ference in  the  state  of  their  minds  antecedent  to  their  acts  ; 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  a  principle  of  taste,  or  sense  of 
beauty,  distinct  from  the  actual  love  of  beauty  ^  We  are  dis- 
posed to  think  that  no  man  can  believe  this  :  that  the  constitu- 
tion of  our  nature  forces  us  to  admit,  that  if  one  man,  under  all 
circumstances,  and  at  all  times,  manifest  this  quick  sensibility 
to  natural  beauty,  and  another  does  not,  there  is  some  difference 
between  the  two  besides  their  acts  ;  that  there  is  some  reason 
why,  when  standing  before  the  same  picture,  one  is  filled  with 
pleasure,  and  the  other  is  utterly  insensible,  We  cannot  help 
believing  that  one  has  taste  (a  quality,  principle,  "or  inward 
sense")  which  the  other  does  not  possess.  It  matters  not  what 
it  may  be  called.  It  is  the  ground  or  reason  of  the  diversity  of 
their  exercises,  which  lies  back  of  the  exercises  themselves,  and 
must  be  assumed  to  account  for  the  difference  of  their  nature. 
Now,  there  is  moral,  as  well  as  natural  beauty,  and  it  is  no  more 
unintelligible  that  there  should  be  a  "  sense,"  or  taste,  for  the 
one  than  for  the  other.  The  perfect  character  of  God,  when  ex- 
hibited to  different  men,  produces  delight  and  desire  in  some, 
repugnance  in  others.  We  instinctively  ask  why  ?  Why  do 
some  perceive  and  delight  in  his  moral  beauty,  while  others  do 
not  ?    The  answer,  some  love,  and  others  do  not,  is  no  answer  at 


REGENERATION.  27 

all.  It  is  merely  saying  the  same  thing,  in  other  words.  There 
must  be  some  reason  why  one  perceives  this  kind  of  beauty  to 
which  others  are  blind  ;  why  one  is  filled  with  love  the  moment 
it  is  presented,  and  the  other  with  repugnance.  And  this  reason 
must  lie  back  of  the  mere  exercise  of  this  afiection,  must  be 
something  besides  the  act  itself,  and  such  as  can  account  for  its 
nature. 

It  may  be  said,  however,  that  the  cases  are  not  analogous ; 
that  the  emotion  excited  by  beauty  is  involuntary,  while  moral 
objects  address  themselves  to  the  voluntary  affections  ;  and  that 
it  is  admitted,  that  there  is  not  only  "  something"  back  of  each 
exercise  of  love,  but  we  are  told  distinctly  what  it  is,  viz,,  the 
soul  with  its  essential  attributes,  its  ultimate  or  supreme  choice, 
or  dominant  affection,  and  the  object  in  view  of  the  mind.  Ac- 
cordingly, it  is  easily  accounted  for,  that,  when  the  character  of 
Grod  is  presented,  one  man  is  filled  with  love,  another  with  re- 
pugnance. The  reason  of  the  difference  in  these  acts  does  indeed 
lie  back  of  the  acts  themselves  ;  for  it  is  found  in  the  ultimate 
or  supreme  choice  of  the  different  individuals.  But  how  is  this 
to  be  accounted  for  ?  If  there  is  no  necessity  for  accounting  for 
the  particular  character  of  the  first  or  ultimate  cl^oice  (if  so  it 
must  needs  be  called),  there  is  no  need  of  accounting  for  the 
others.  The  difficulty  is  not  at  all  met  by  this  statement.  It  is 
only  pushed  back,  from  the  secondary  and  subordinate,  to  the 
primary  and  dominant  preference.  There  it  returns.  The  ques- 
tion still  is,  why  does  the  soul  of  one  man  make  this  supreme 
choice  of  God,  or,  in  other  words,  love  him,  while  another  sets 
his  affection  on  the  world  ?  There  is  precisely  the  same  neces- 
sity for  assuming  some  ground  or  reason  for  the  nature  of  the 
first  choice,  as  for  any  acts  subordinate  and  subsequent  to  it. 
Let  us  suppose  two  individuals  called  into  existence,  in  the  full 
-maturity  of  their  faculties  ;  each  has  a  soul  with  the  same  con- 
stitutional powers,  or  essential  attributes  ;  the  one  is  filled  with 
delight  the  moment  the  character  of  God  is  presented,  and  the 
other  is  not ;  or  the  one  loves  his  Maker  as  soon  as  the  idea  of 
his  excellence  is  presented,  the  other  does  not.  According  to 
this  theory,  there  is  no  reason  for  this  difference.  There  is  noth- 
ing back  of  the  first  act  of  choice  that  is  not  common  to  both. 
If,  instead  of  two  individuals,  we  suppose  two  millions,  one  por- 
tion having  their  aflections  spontaneously  called  forth  on  their 


28  REGENERATION. 

first  view  of  their  Maker,  the  other  unaffected  ;  we  have  only  a 
greater  number  of  effects  without  a  cause,  but  the  case  is  the 
same.  It  will  not  do  to  answer,  that  the  choice  is  made  under 
the  influence  of  the  desire  of  happiness,  for  this  being  common 
to  all,  is  no  reason  for  the  difference  of  the  result,  which  is  the 
very  thing  to  be  accounted  for.  To  say  that  the  choice  is  made 
under  the  influence  of  the  desire  of  happiness,  is  only  to  say,  that 
when  the  character  of  God  is  presented  it  gives  pleasure.  But 
the  same  character  is  presented  in  both  cases,  the  same  desire 
exists  in  both,  yet  in  one  it  gives  pleasure,  is  an  object  of  desire ; 
in  the  other  not.  This  is  the  fact  which  is  left  entirely  unac- 
counted for  on  the  theory  in  question,  and  for  which  the  mind  as 
instinctively  seeks  a  cause,  as  it  does  for  any  other  effect.  To 
account  for  the  difference  from  the  nature  of  agency,  is  to  assume 
the  liberty  of  indifference.  For  if  the  choice  be  made  prior  to 
the  rising  of  desire  towards  the  object,  then  it  is  made  in  indiffer- 
ence, and  is  of  no  moral  character.  If  the  desire  rise,  it  is  love  ; 
which  is  the  very  thing  to  be  accounted  for.  We  are  at  a  loss  to 
see  how  this  theory  is  to  be  reconciled  with  the  Calvinists'  doc- 
trine on  the  will,  which  is  not  peculiar  to  Edwards,  but  consti- 
tuted the  great  dividing  line  between  Calvinists  and  Arminians 
from  the  beginning.  We  feel,  therefore,  a  necessity  for  assum- 
ing that  there  is  "  something"  back  of  the  first  moral  act,  be- 
sides the  soul  and  its  essential  attributes,  which  will  account  for 
the  nature  of  that  act,  which  constitutes  the  reason  why,  in  the 
case  supposed,  the  soul  of  the  one  individual  rose  immediately  to 
God,  and  the  other  did  not ;  and  the  "  something"  assumed  ia 
this  case  is  no  more  indefinite  and  undefineable,  than  the  con- 
stitutional propensity  to  live  in  society,  to  love  our  children,  or 
the  mental  quality  called  taste,  all  which  are  assumed  from  a 
necessity  not  more  imperative  than  that  which  requires  a  holy 
principle  to  account  for  the  delight  experienced  in  view  of  the 
character  of  God.  And  if  our  Maker  can  endow  us  not  only  with 
the  general  susceptibility  of  love,  but  also  with  a  specific  dispo- 
sition to  love  our  children  ;  if  he  can  give  us  a  discernment  and 
susceptibility  of  natural  beauty,  he  may  give  us  a  taste  for  spirit- 
ual loveKness.  And  if  that  taste,  by  reason  of  sin,  is  vitiated  and 
perverted,  he  may  restore  it  by  the  influences  of  his  Spirit  in  re- 
generation. Neither,  therefore,  the  objection,  that  what  is  not 
an  act,  must  be  an  essential  attribute  ;  nor  the  unintelligible 


REGENERATION.  29 

nature  of  a  "  principle  of  nature,"  is,  in  our  view,  any  valid  ob- 
jection to  tlie  common  doctrine  on  regeneration. 

There  is  a  third  ohjection,  however,  to  this  doctrine,  and  that 
is,  that  it  renders  the  sinner  excusable,  because  it  makes  regen- 
eration to  consist  in  something  else  than  the  sinner's  own  act. 
This  objection,  as  it  seems  to  us,  can  only  be  valid  on  one  or  the 
other  of  two  grounds  ;  the  first  is,  that  the  common  doctrine 
supposes  sin  to  be  a  physical  defect,  and  regeneration  physical 
change  ;  and  the  second  is,  that  a  man  is  responsible  solely  for 
his  acts,  or  that  there  can  be  no  moral  principle  anterior  to 
moral  action.  With  regard  to  the  first,  it  is  enough  to  say,  that 
no  physical  change,  according  to  the  constant  declaration  of 
Calvinistic  writers,  is  held  to  take  place  in  regeneration,  and  that 
no  such  change  is  implied  in  the  production  of  a  holy  principle, 
as  we  have  already  endeavored  to  show. 

The  second  ground  is  inconsistent  with  the  common  notions  of 
men  on  the  nature  of  virtue,  and,  if  true,  would  render  the  com- 
mencement of  holiness  or  regeneration  impossible.  It  is  accord- 
ing to  the  universal  feeling  and  judgment  of  men,  that  the 
moral  character  of  an  act  depends  upon  the  motive  with  which 
it  is  done.  This  is  so  obviously  true,  that  Reid  and  Stewart, 
and  almost  all  other  advocates  of  the  liberty  of  indifference, 
readily  admit  it.  And  so  do  the  advocates  of  the  theory  on 
which  this  objection  is  founded,  with  regard  to  aU  moral  acts, 
excepting  the  first.  All  acts  of  choice,  to  be  holy,  must  proceed 
from  a  holy  motive,  excepting  the  first  holy  choice  which  con- 
stitutes regeneration  ;  that  may  be  made  from  the  mere  desire 
of  happiness  or  self-love.  We  confess  that  this  strikes  us  as  very 
much  like  a  relinquishment  of  the  whole  system.  For  how  is  it 
conceivable  that  anything  should  be  essential  to  the  very  nature 
of  one  act  as  holy,  that  is  not  necessary  to  another  ?  Is  not  this 
saying  that  that  on  which  the  very  nature  of  a  thing  depends 
may  be  absent,  and  yet  the  thing  remain  the  same  ?  Is  it  not 
saying  that  that  which  makes  an  act  what  it  is,  and  gives  it  its 
character,  may  be  wanting  or  altered,  and  yet  the  character  of 
the  act  be  unaffected  ?  It  is  the  motive  which  gives  the  moral 
character  to  the  act.  If  the  motive  is  good,  the  act  is  good  ;  if 
the  motive  is  bad,  the  act  is  bad  ;  if  the  motive  is  indifferent,  so 
is  the  act.  The  act  has  no  character  apart  from  the  motive. 
This,  it  seems,  is  admitted  with  regard  to  aU  moral  acts  except- 


30  REaENERATION. 

ing  tlie  first.  But  the  first  act  of  a  holy  kind  is  an  act  of 
obedience,  as  well  as  all  subsequent  acts  of  the  same  kind.  How 
then  is  it  conceivable  that  the  first  act  of  obedience  performed 
from  the  mere  desire  of  happiness  or  self-love  can  be  holy,  when 
no  other  act  of  the  same  kind,  and  performed  from  the  same 
motive,  either  is  or  can  be  ?  How  does  its  being  first  alter  its 
very  nature  ?  It  is  still  nothing  more  than  an  act  done  for  self- 
gratification,  and  cannot  be  a  holy  act.  It  is  said  we  must  admit 
this,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  or  acknowledge  that  there 
can  be  holiness  before  moral  action.  We  prefer  admitting  the 
latter,  and  believing  that  "  God  created  man  upright/'  and  not 
that  he  made  himself  so.  That  there  was  a  disposition,  or  relish, 
or  taste  for  holiness,  before  there  was  any  holy  act,  which  to  us 
is  far  more  reasonable  than  that  an  act  is  holy  because  the  first 
of  a  series,  which,  if  performed  from  the  same  motive  at  a  differ- 
ent point  of  the  line,  would  have  a  different  character.  The 
grand  objection,  we  know,  that  is  made  to  all  this  is,  that  holy 
beings  have  fallen,  which  it  is  maintained  would  be  impossible 
if  the  ground  here  assumed  is  correct.  If  the  character  of  an  act 
depends  on  its  motive,  a  sinful  act  cannot  be  performed  by  a 
being  in  whom  sin  does  not  already  exist ;  and,  consequently, 
neither  the  fallen  angels,  nor  Adam,  could  ever  have  apostatized. 
We  think,  however,  that  there  is  a  broad  difi'erence  between  the 
commencement  of  holiness  and  the  commencement  of  sin,  and 
that  more  is  necessary  for  the  former  than  for  the  latter.  An  act 
of  obedience,  if  it  is  performed  under  the  mere  impulse  of  self-love, 
is  virtually  no  act  of  obedience.  It  is  not  performed  with  any 
intention  to  obey,  for  that  is  holy,  and  cannot,  according  to  the 
theory,  precede  the  act.  But  an  act  of  disobedience  performed 
from  the  desire  of  happiness  is  rebellion.  The  cases  are  surely 
widely  different.  If  to  please  myself  I  do  what  Grod  commands, 
it  is  not  holiness  ;  but  if  to  please  myself  I  do  what  he  forbids, 
it  is  sin.  Besides  no  creature,  is  immutable.  Though  created 
holy,  the  taste  for  holy  enjoyments  may  bo  overcome  by  a  temp- 
tation sufficiently  insidious  and  powerful,  and  a  selfish  motive  or 
feeling  excited  in  the  mind.  Neither  is  a  sinful  character  im- 
mutable. By  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  the  truth  may  be  so 
clearly  presented,  and  so  effectually  applied,  as  to  produce  that 
change  which  is  called  regeneration  ;   that  is,  as  to  call  into 


BEGENERATION.  31 

existence  a  taste  for  holiness,  so  that  it  is  chosen  for  its  own 
sake,  and  not  merely  as  a  means  of  happiness. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  theory  which  denies  the 
possihihty  of  moral  distinctions  being  carried  back  of  acts  of 
choice,  forces  its  advocates  to  adopt  the  opinion  that  the  first 
holy  act  is  specifically  different  from  all  others.  That  Adam  was 
not  created  holy,  but  by  choosing  God,  made  himself  holy,  and 
that  this  choice,  though  made  with  no  holy  motive  or  intention, 
but  merely  from  a  desire  of  happiness,  has  a  moral  character. 
This  we  think  not  only  contradictory  to  the  express  declaration 
of  Scripture,  which  says  that  man  was  created  in  the  image  of 
his  Maker  (which  includes  his  moral  as  well  as  his  natural  image, 
as  we  are  taught  in  the  New  Testament),  but  is  inconsistent  with 
the  very  first  principles  of  morals,  as  it  teaches  that  an  act 
performed  without  any  good  intention  or  motive,  is  yet  holy.  It 
seems  to  us  liable,  also,  to  this  further  objection,  that  it  repre- 
sents man's  obligation  to  love  God,  to  rest  upon  the  fact  that  it 
will  promote  his  happiness.  This  is  involved  in  the  principle, 
that  the  choice  made  from  this  motive  is  a  good  choice  ;  for  it 
can  only  be  good  as  it  is  in  obedience  to  a  moral  obligation.  If 
the  obligation  fulfilled  is  to  God,  then  to  fulfil  it  must  be  the 
motive.  If  the  motive  which  prompts  the  choice  have  reference 
to  himself,  then  the  only  obligation  which  he  fulfils,  is  to  himself 
It  is  a  wise  decision,  but  it  is  no  holy  act.  K  it  be  said  that  the 
excellence  of  the  choice  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  object  chosen,  it 
is  giving  up  the  question.  For  if  the  excellence  of  the  object 
be  the  ground  of  the  choice,  it  can  act  as  a  motive  only  by 
exciting  a  desire  for  it  as  excellent,  which  must  needs  be  a  holy 
desire,  and  if  this  determines  the  choice,  then  the  man  is  holy 
before  he  chooses  God  as  his  portion,  and  the  choice  is  the  result, 
and  not  the  cause  of  his  hohness.  Or,  if  we  call  the  desire  itself 
the  choice  (which  is  an  incorrect  use  of  terms),  still  the  case  is 
the  same.  For  the  best  definition  that  can  be  given  of  a  holy 
being  is,  that  holy  objects  excite  in  him  desire  as  soon  as  they  are 
presented.  If  Adam,  therefore,  was  filled  with  desire  and  pleas- 
ure, as  soon  as  his  mind  rested  on  the  character  of  God,  then  he 
was  created  holy.  As  we  remarked  above,  this  theory,  that  the 
first  moral  act  is  not  performed  from  a  holy  motive,  but  from 
the  constitutional  desire  of  happiness,  is  not  only  inconsistent 
with  the  nature  of  a  holy  act,  but  affords  no  relief  in  the  case. 


32  KEGENEKATION. 

For  the  difficulty  still  remains,  why  the  character  of  God  should 
appear  desirable  to  one  being,  and  not  to  another,  if  both  are 
called  into  existence  in  puris  naturalihus. 

That  Adam  was  created  holy,  that  is,  with  a  holy  disposition, 
which  existed  prior  to  his  first  holy  act,  though  necessarily  de- 
structive of  the  very  first  principle  of  the  theory  referred  to,  has 
been  considered  as  a  fixed  point  among  Calvinists.  We  have 
already  seen  that  Dr.  Dwight  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  prove 
it.  Because,  he  says,  "  every  man  who  believes  the  mind  to  be 
something  more  than  ideas  and  exercises,  and  does  not  admit  the 
doctrine  of  causalty,  will  acknowledge"  it.  President  Edwards, 
in  his  work  on  original  sin,  has  a  whole  chapter,  in  which  he 
endeavors  to  prove  that  our  first  parents  were  created  in  right- 
eousness, or,  as  he  expresses  it,  "  with  holy  principles  and 
dispositions."  The  grand  objection  against  this  doctrine,  he 
says, 'is  this  :  "that  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of 
virtue,  that  it  should  be  concreated  with  any  person  ;  because, 
if  so,  it  must  be  by  an  act  of  God's  absolute  power,  without  our 
knowledge  or  concurrence  ;  and  that  moral  virtue,  in  its  very 
nature,  implieth  the  choice  and  consent  of  the  moral  agent, 
without  which  it  cannot  be  virtue  and  holiness :  that  a  necessary 
holiness  is  no  holiness  ;"  and  he  quotes  from  Dr.  Taylor,  of 
Norwich,  the  words,  "  Adam  must  exist,  he  must  be  created, 
yea,  he  must  exercise  thought  and  reflection  before  he  was  right- 
eous." To  this  he  replies,  "  In  the  first  place,  I  think  it  a 
contradiction  to  the  nature  of  things,  as  judged  of  by  the 
common  sense  of  mankind.  It  is  agreeable  to  the  sense  of  the 
minds  of  men  in  all  ages,  not  only  that  the  fruit  or  effect  of  a 
good  choice  is  virtuous,  but  the  good  choice  itself,  from  which 
that  effect  proceeds  ;  yea,  and  not  only  so,  but  also  the  antece- 
dent good  disposition,  temper,  or  affection  of  the  mind  from 
whence  proceeds  that  good  choice,  is  virtuous.  This  is  the 
general  notion,  not  that  principles  derive  their  goodness  from 
actions,  but  that  actions  derive  their  goodness  from  the  principles 
whence  they  proceed  ;  and  so  that  the  act  of  choosing  that 
which  is  good,  is  no  further  virtuous  than  it  proceeds  from  a 
good  principle,  or  virtuous  disposition  of  mind  ;  which  supposes, 
that  a  virtuous  disposition  of  mind  may  be  before  a  virtuous  act 
of  choice  ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  is  not  necessary  that  there 
should  first  he  thought,  reflection,  and  choice,  hefore  there  can  he 


REGENERATION.  33 

any  virtuous  disposition.  If  the  choice  be  first,  before  the  exist- 
ence of  a  good  disposition  of  heart,  what  signifies  that  choice  ? 
There  can,  according  to  our  natural  notions,  be  no  virtue  in  a 
choice  which  proceeds  from  no  virtuous  principle,  but  fi-om  mere 
self-love,  ambition,  or  some  animal  appetite." — P.  140.  If  there 
was  a  holy  disposition  before  there  was  "  thought,  reflection,  or 
choice,"  Edwards  most  assuredly  carried  moral  distinctions  back 
of  moral  acts.  That  by  so  doing  he  carried  them  into  the 
"  essential  attributes  of  the  soul,"  is  an  assertion  founded  on  the 
assumption  that  what  is  not  an  act  must  be  an  essential  attribute, 
which  we  believe  few  are  prepared  to  admit.  God  has  created 
man  with  various  susceptibilities,  dispositions,  or  tendencies  of 
mind  towards  objects  without  himself;  these  tendencies  are  not 
necessarily  "real  existences,  entities,"  or  essential  attributes,  for 
tendencies  or  habits  may,  as  before  remarked,  be  acquired,  as  the 
skill  of  an  artist,  or  a  proneness  to  any  particular  mental  exercise. 
They  may  result  from  the  relative  state  of  all  the  essential  attri- 
butes, and  yet  be  "no  part  of  the  soul"  themselves.  Their  nature, 
however,  is  confessedly  as  inconceivable  as  the  nature  of  the  soul, 
and  no  more  so  ;  and  they  are  as  necessarily  assumed  to  account 
for  the  results  which  meet  our  view,  as  the  soul  or  any  of  its 
attributes.  If  a  million  of  intelligent  beings,  the  first  moment 
they  think  of  the  character  of  God,  are  filled  with  desire  and 
delight,  it  is  as  evident  that  they  were  created  "with  a  proneness 
or  disposition  to  take  pleasure  in  holiness,  as  it  is  that  the  hearts 
of  mothers  have  an  innate  tendency  to  love  their  cliildren, 
because  they  glow  with  delight  the  first  moment  they  are  given 
to  them.  Nothing,  w^e  think,  but  the  most  determined  adher- 
ence to  a  speculative  opinion,  can  prevent  any  man  acknowledg- 
ing that  it  is  as  possible  for  the  mind  to  be  created  with  this 
"instinctive"  love  of  holiness,  as  with  a  disposition  for  any 
other  specific  class  of  objects.  And  we  think,  too,  that  the  vast 
body  of  men  will  agree  with  President  Edwards  in  thinking  that 
"  such  a  disposition  being  natural,  or  from  a  kind  of  instinct, 
implanted  in  the  mind  in  its  creation,"  is  no  objection  to  its 
being  of  a  virtuous  or  moral  character.  Does  the  maternal 
instinct  cease  to  be  amiable,  because  it  is  natural  ?  Does  a 
disposition  to  kindness  and  gentleness  lose  its  character  by  being 
innate  ?  Are  not  the  instinctive  love  of  justice,  abhorrence  of 
cruelty,  admiration  of  what  is  noble,  which  God  has  Lniplanted. 


34  REGENERATION. 

in  our  nature,  objects  of  approbation  ?  If  our  feelings  and  the 
general  sense  of  mankind  answer  these  questions  in  the  affirma- 
tive, they  as  certainly  will  decide  that  an  innate  disposition  to 
love  God,  existing  in  the  mind  of  Adam  at  the  moment  of  his 
creation,  docs  not  lose  its  moral  character  by  being  innate.  The 
common  feelings  and  judgment  of  men,  therefore,  do  carry  moral 
distinctions  back  of  acts  of  choice,  and  must  do  so  unless  we  deny 
that  virtue  ever  can  commence,  for  "there  can,  according  to  cm- 
natural  notions,  be  no  virtue  in  a  choice  which  proceeds  from  no 
virtuous  principle,  but  from  mere  self-love." 

If  this  be  so,  the  very  foundation  of  the  objection  that  the 
CJommon  doctrine  of  regeneration  destroys  the  responsibility  of 
the  sinner  is  taken  away.  This  responsibility  rests  upon  the  fact, 
that  he  stands  in  the  relation  of  a  rational  and  moral  creature  to 
God,  He  has  all  the  attributes  of  a  moral  agent — understand- 
ing, conscience,  and  will.  He  has  unimpaired  the  liberty  of 
acting  according  to  his  own  inclinations.  His  mind  is  not 
subject  to  any  law  of  causation,  which  determines  his  acts 
independently  of  himself.  Motives,  as  external  to  the  mind, 
have  no  influence,  but  as  the  mind  itself,  according  to  the  laws 
of  all  rational  creation,  is  aflected  by  them  and  voluntarily 
admits  their  influence,  and  yields  to  it.  The  responsibility  of 
man,  therefore,  resting  on  the  immutable  obligations  which  bind 
him  to  love  and  obey  God,  and  on  the  possession  of  all  the 
attributes  of  moral  agency,  is  not  destroyed  by  his  moral  deprav- 
ity, of  which  the  want  of  a  disposition  to  holiness  is  an  integral 
part.  He  does  not  love  God,  not  because  there  is  any  physical 
defect  in  his  constitution,  but  because  his  moral  taste  is  perverted 
by  reason  of  sin.  He  is  so  corrupt  that  even  infinite  loveliness 
appears  hateful  to  him.  There  can,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be 
no  reason  why  an  intelligent  and  moral  being  should  be  bhnd  to 
moral  excellence,  excepting  moral  corruption.  And  if  this  be  an 
excuse,  then  the  more  depraved,  the  less  he  is  to  blame.  How 
he  became  thus  depraved  is  another  question, — but  it  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  point  before  us,  which  is,  the  nature  of  the 
inability  which  it  involves  to  love  God.  He  may  have  been  born 
80,  or,  he  may  have  made  himself  so.  It  makes  no  difference  as 
to  this  point.  So  long  as  this  depravity  is  his  own,  his  own 
moral  character,  it  can  furnish  no  excuse  or  palliation  for  not 
complying  with  the  great  command  of  the  law  and  gospel.    An 


REGENERATION.  35 

object  worthy  of  all  affection  is  presented  to  his  view,  viz.,  the 
divine  character ;  he  is  capable  of  intellectually  apprehending 
this  object.  If  blind  to  its  loveliness,  it  is,  in  his  own  judgment 
and  that  of  all  men,  his  sin  ;  it  is  the  very  height  of  corruption 
to  view  as  unlovely  what  is  the  perfection  of  moral  beauty.  That 
men  do  labor  under  this  moral  bhndness,  is  one  of  the  most 
frequently  asserted  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures.  "  The  natural 
man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  for  they  are 
foolishness  unto  him ;  neither  can  he  know  them,  because  they 
are  spiritually  discerned."  "  These  things,"  says  our  Saviom-, 
"  will  they  do  unto  you  because  they  have  not  known  the  Father 
nor  me."  "To  know  God  is  eternal  life."  "We  are  said  to  be 
saved  through  knowledge.  The  gospel  is  "hid  to  them  that  are 
lost."  Their  eyes  are  blinded.  Light  has  shined  into  the  hearts 
of  those  that  believe.  The  saints  of  old  prayed  to  have  their 
minds  illuminated  ;  and  Paul  intercedes  for  his  fellow  Christians 
earnestly  and  frequently  for  this  blessing,  as  the  only  possible 
means  of  their  sanctificatiou.  This  is  so  plain,  that  President 
Edwards,  in  speaking  on  this  subject,  says,  "There  is  such  a 
thing,  if  the  Scriptures  are  of  any  use  to  teach  us  anything,  as  a 
spiritual,  supernatural  understanding  of  divine  things  that  is 
peculiar  to  the  saints,  and  vfhich  those  who  are  not  saints  know 
nothing  of." — P.  298,  On  the  Affections.  The  cause  of  this 
blindness  is  sin,  and  therefore  it  is  inexcusable.  But  if  it  exists, 
there  is  an  evident  necessity  for  such  a  change  in  the  soul,  that 
it  shall  be  brought  to  see  this  beauty  of  holiness,  and  from  the 
constitution  of  our  nature,  this  change  must  precede  the  exercise 
of  love.  For  how  can  we  love  that  which  we  do  not  see.  The 
affections  must  have  an  object,  and  that  object  must  be  appre- 
hended in  its  true  nature,  in  order  to  be  truly  loved.  It  is 
obvious,  therefore,  that  regeneration,  to  be  of  a  moral  character 
at  all,  must  consist  in  such  a  change  as  brings  the  soul  into  a 
state  to  see  and  love  the  beauty  of  holiness.  It  matters  not  what 
the  change  be  called — a  "  spiritual  sense,"  or  "a  taste,"  or  "  dis- 
position ;"  it  is  as  necessary  as  that  an  object  should  be  seen  in 
order  to  be  loved. 

Now  it  is  evident  that  all  this  must  be  denied  by  those  who 
make  regeneration  to  consist  in  the  "act  of  loving  God,"  who 
deny  that  there  is  any  change  prior  in  the  order  of  nature  to  the 
exercise  of  love.     For  if  the  sinner  is  blind  to  God's  loveliness, 


36  REGENERATION. 

it  is  absolutely  impossible  that  he  should  love  it,  until  he  is 
brought  to  see  it.  It  may  be  said,  that  this  is  to  render  the 
sinner's  case  absolutely  hopeless.  So  it  is.  And  they  do  but 
delude  and  mock  him,  who  represent  it  othenvise.  It  is  thus 
the  Bible  represents  it.  It  tells  him  that  the  natural  man  can- 
not know  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  And  it  is  moreover 
necessary,  that  the  sinner  should  be  brought  to  feel  that  his  case, 
as  far  as  he  himself  is  concerned,  is  absolutely  hopeless  ;  that  he 
may  be  brought  to  faU,  with  his  blind  and  wicked  heart,  at  the 
feet  of  sovereign  mercy,  and  cry,  Lord  save  me  !  or  I  perish. 
But  does  this  make  the  sinner  excusable  ?  not  unless  his  sin  is 
his  excuse.  It  is  this,  and  this  alone,  which  prevents  his  percep- 
tion of  the  lovehness  of  God,  and  therefore,  the  more  complete 
his  blindness,  the  greater  his  loathsomeness  and  guilt.  The  two 
sentiments  of  complete  helplessness,  and  of  entire  blame-worthi- 
ness, are  perfectly  consistent,  and  are  ever  united  in  Christian 
experience.  The  believer  feels  them  every  day.  He  knows  that 
it  is  his  duty,  at  once,  to  love  God  as  purely,  and  fervently,  and 
constantly,  as  do  the  saints  made  perfect.  Yet  he  feels  that  no 
mere  eflbrts  of  his  own,  no  use  of  means,  no  presentation  of 
motives,  no  summoning  of  his  powers,  will  ever  enable  him  to 
raise  his  carnal  heart  to  heaven.  Does  this  free  him  from  a 
sense  of  guilt  ?  No,  He  covers  his  face  with  both  his  hands, 
and  bows  down  in  the  dust,  and  cries,  Behold,  I  am  vUe.  Have 
mercy  on  me,  0  Lord,  and  create  within  me  a  clean  heart. 

That  the  denial  of  the  sinner's  blindness  to  the  holiness  of 
God,  is  involved  in  the  theory  of  regeneration  under  considera- 
tion, is  perfectly  evident,  and  is  not,  we  presume,  denied.  If  the 
mere  choice  of  God,  as  the  supreme  portion  of  the  soul,  is  re- 
generation, and  the  performance  of  this  act  constitutes  the 
change,  then  of  course  no  previous  change  is  admitted  to  be 
necessary  to  enable  him  to  make  the  choice ;  no  opening  of  his 
eyes  to  see  the  moral  excellence  of  the  object  he  is  to  choose,  no 
production  of  any  sense  of  its  loveliness  ;.  the  choice  itself  is  all 
that  is  demanded ;  and  for  this,  everything  is  present  that  the  act 
requires — the  object,  the  capacity  of  viewing  it  in  its  true  moral 
excellence,  and  the  motive  whence  the  choice  is  to  proceed.  For 
he  need  not  choose  God  from  any  holy  motive  or  intention  (which 
would  be  to  make  holiness  precede  moral  action)  :  the  simple  de- 
sire of  happiness  is  all  that  is  required.     The  character  of  this 


BEGENEEATION.  37 

first  act  does  not  depend  on  its  motive.  It  is  holy,  thougli  per- 
formed merely  from  the  desire  of  self-gratification.  This  is  a 
conclusion  from  which  our  minds  instinctively  revolt,  and  which, 
Edwards  says,  is  contrary  to  the  notions  of  men.  It  is,  however, 
a  conclusion  which  is  legitimate  and  acknowledged,  and  being,  in 
our  view,  a  complete  reductio  ad  absurdum,  the  system  is  fairly, 
in  our  humble  apprehension,  felo  de  se. 

Dr.  Cox  asks  whether  it  is  not  "  intrinsically  absurd"  that  a 
man  should  be  regenerated  before  he  does  his  duty  ?     We  think 
the  absurdity  is  all  the  other  way,  that  he  should  do  his  duty 
without  being  regenerated.     That  he  should  love  God  without 
having  any  proper  perception  of  his  character ;  or  that  an  unholy 
soul  should  have  this  perception  of  the  beauty  of  holiness.    It  ap- 
pears to  us  a  contradiction  in  terms  to  say,  that  a  holy  object  can 
be  viewed  as  excellent  and  desirable  by  a  carnal  mind  ;  for  a  holy 
mind  is  best  defined  by  saying,  that  it  perceives  and  relishes  the 
beauty  of  holiness.     It  is  inconceivable  to  us,  therefore,  that  any 
sinner  should  love  Grod,  without  this  previous  change,  except  on 
one  or  the  other  of  these  two  grounds  ;  that  all  his  acts  are  created 
in  him,  and  he  is  really  no  agent  at  all,  or  that  an  act  proceeding 
from  mere  self-love  is  holy.    Both  which  contradict  what  to  us  are 
primary  principles  or  intuitive  truths.    But  how  is  it  that  regene- 
ration precedes  the  exercise  of  love  ?    As  the  opening  of  the  eyes 
precedes  sight ;  as  a  sense  of  the  beautiful  precedes  the  emotion  of 
beauty ;  as  the  maternal  instinct  precedes  maternal  love.     As  it 
is  impossible  for  a  man  to  have  his  eyes  open  in  the  day-time 
without  seeing,  so  is  it  impossible  for  a  man  to  be  regenerated 
without  delighting  in  God.     Yet  opening  the  eyes  is  not  seeing, 
nor  is  regeneration  delighting  in  God.     What  the  metaphysical 
nature  of  this  change  is,  no  one  can  tell.    All  the  soul  can  say  is, 
Whereas  I  was  bhnd,  now  I  see.      What  once  appeared  repul- 
sive and  "foolishness,"   now  appears   supremely  desirable   and 
excellent.      What  once  excited   enmity,  now  calls  forth  love. 
What  once  was  irksome  and  difficult,  is  now  easy  and  delightful. 
To  say  that  these  exercises  themselves  constitute  the  change, 
and  the  whole  change,  is  to  say  that  a  wicked  man  is  suddenly 
transformed  in   all   his  views,  feelings,  and   conduct,  without 
any  reason  for  it.      And  to  refer  all  to  the  immediate  opera- 
tions of  the  Spirit,  is  to  make   man  a  machine,  or   mere  in- 
strument,  on   which  a  mysterious  hand    plays    what   tune   it 


38  REGENERATION. 

pleases,  to  the  delight  or  torment  of  the  conscious  but  passive 
subject. 

There  is  still  another  point.  Dr.  Cox  speaks  of  this  "  certain 
kind  of  principle/'  as  "  a  mysterious  gratuity,"  with  which  the 
receiver  has  nothing  to  do.  A  something  inserted  in  the  soul  in 
some  magic  manner  to  influence  his  exercises,  but  which  forms 
no  part  of  his  character.  We  are  persuaded  that  a  fundamental 
difference,  as  to  the  nature  of  agency  and  human  liberty,  lies  at 
the  foundation  of  all  such  objections.  "We  are  as  yet  only  fight- 
ing in  the  dark.  The  real  turning  point  is  yet  in  the  background. 
We  do  not  mean  that  it  is  intentionally  kept  there,  but  that 
these  objections  have  not  even  the  semblance  of  force,  if  (what  is 
yet  considered  common  ground)  the  Calvinistic  theory  of  the  will 
is  retained.  Was  it  a  mere  "  mysterious  gratuity,"  without 
moral  character  for  him,  that  Adam  was  created  in  the  image 
of  God  "  with  holy  principles  and  dispositions  ?"  Were  these 
not  voluntary  principles  ?  Was  he  not  free  in  all  his  exercises 
of  love  determined  by  them  ?  A  disposition  is  not  the  less 
voluntary  because  it  is  innate.  The  affections  are  all  voluntary, 
although  concreated  with  us.  Is  a  man  less  free  in  loving  him- 
self because  self-love  is  a  constitutional  propensity  '?  Does  a 
mother  love  her  child  against  her  will,  because  she  acts  agreeably 
to  her  nature  ?  Does  not  the  disposition  so  to  do  enter  into  her 
character  .^  If  this  be  true  with  regard  even  to  constitutional 
propensities,  it  is  still  more  obviously  true  with  respect  to  moral 
disposition,  whether  originally  implanted  or  restored  in  regenera- 
tion. There  is  a  continual  play  upon  the  double  sense  of  the 
word  voluntary.  When  the  faculties  of  the  soul  are  reduced  to 
understanding  and  will,  it  is  evident  that  the  latter  includes  all 
the  affections.  In  this  sense,  all  liking  or  disliking,  desiring  or 
being  averse  to,  etc.,  are  voluntary,  or  acts  of  the  will.  But 
when  we  speak  of  the  understanding,  will,  and  affections,  the 
word  "  will"  includes  much  less.  It  is  the  power  of  the  soul  to 
come  to  a  determination,  to  fix  its  choice  on  some  object  of  desire. 
These  two  meanings  are  distinct,  though  they  may  relate  only 
to  different  states  of  the  same  faculty.  In  the  latter  sense,  will 
and  desire  are  not  always  coincident.  A  man  may  desire  money 
and  not  will  to  take  it,  or  make  it  an  object  of  pursuit ;  he  may 
not  fix  his  choice  upon  it.  The  will  is  here  determined  by  some 
other  desire  of  greater  force  ;  desire  of  doing  right,  for  example. 


REGENERATION.  39 

When  we  speak  of  a  volition,  of  a  choice,  of  a  decision  or  deter- 
mination of  the  will,  the  word  "  will"  is  used  in  the  restricted 
sense.  A  man  may  have  many  objects  of  desire  before  his  mind  ; 
the  decision  which  the  will  makes  among  them,  or  its  selection, 
is  its  choice.  There  are  a  thousand  things  capable  of  ministering 
to  our  happiness  ;  riches,  honor,  sensual  pleasure,  the  service  of 
God  ;  the  selection  which  the  soul  makes,  is  made  by  the  will  in 
the  narrower  sense.  This  is  a  voluntary  act,  in  one  sense  of  the 
term.  But  in  another,  the  desire  itself  which  the  soul  has  for 
these  objects,  and  not  merely  its  decision  or  choice,  is  a  voluntary 
act.  For,  according  to  Edwards,  "  all  choosing,  refusing,  ap- 
proving, disapproving,  liking,  disliking,  directing,  commanding, 
inclining,  or  being  averse,  a  being  -pleased,  or  displeased  with," 
are  acts  of  the  will.  In  this  sense,  all  the  aifections,  and  all  de- 
sires are  voluntary  exercises,  whether  constitutional  or  not,  and 
not  merely  the  decision  to  which  they  lead.  Hence  self-love, 
the  love  of  children,  the  love  of  society,  the  desire  of  esteem, 
are  all  voluntary,  although  all  springing  from  native  tendencies 
of  the  mind. 

This  distinction  between  these  different  senses  of  the  word 
will,  although  frequently  made,  and  formally  stated,  is  yet,  time 
after  time,  lost  sight  of  in  discussions  of  this  nature  ;  which 
gives  rise  to  endless  confusion.  The  word  is  often  used  in  one 
sense  in  the  premises  of  an  argument,  and  in  the  other  in  the 
conclusion.  How  often  is  it  said  that  a  man  can  love  God  if  he 
wUl  ?  What  does  this  mean  ?  If  will  be  here  used  in  its  nar- 
rower sense,  this  is  not  true.  The  affections  no  more  obey  a  de- 
termination of  the  mind,  than  the  emotions  do.  A  man  can  no 
more  will  to  love,  to  hate,  to  be  pleased  or  displeased,  than  he 
can  will  to  be  joyful  or  sorrowful,  gay  or  sad,  or  even  hot  or  cold 
at  any  given  moment.  But  if  the  word  be  taken  in  its  larger 
sense,  as  including  the  affections,  then  the  proposition  is  identi- 
cal ;  it  is  saying,  a  man  can  love  God  if  he  does  love  God.  And 
when  Dr.  Cox  says  there  are  some  men  who  teach  that  a  man 
has  no  ability  to  believe,  even  if  he  has  the  inclination  ;  the  very 
statement  is  absurd.  For  if  the  mind  is  inchned  to  embrace  the 
truth  in  its  real  character,  it  does  believe. 

Although  the  advocates  of  the  theory,  that  moraUty  at- 
taches only  to  acts  of  choice,  lay  down  as  the  foundation  of  their 
doctrine  Edwards'  definition  of  the  will  as  given  above,  yet  it  is 


40  REGENERATION. 

plain  that  in  a  multitude  of  cases  they  confine  acts  of  choice  to 
acts  of  the  will  in  the  restricted  sense.  Thus  the  desire  of  money 
becomes  avarice,  they  say,  only  when  the  will  comes  in  and  de- 
cides on  money  as  the  main  object  of  pursuit.  Self-esteem  is 
not  pride,  until  the  will  decides  on  preferring  our  own  claims  un- 
duly. In  all  such  cases  it  is  the  will,  as  the  faculty  of  decision  be- 
tween different  objects  of  desire,  that  is  intended.  It  is  to  acts  of 
the  will  in  this  restricted  sense,  and  to  the  states  of  mind  thence 
resulting,  and  not  to  voluntary  acts  in  the  broad  sense  of  President 
Edwards,  that  morality  is  made  to  attach.  Hence,  in  the  case  of 
Adam,  the  desire  excited  by  a  view  of  the  divine  affections,  has 
no  moral  character.  That  belongs  only  to  the  act  of  the  will 
which  fixes  on  God  as  the  chief  good.  And  the  first  holy  act 
of  a  new-born  soul  is  not  the  desire  which  rises  in  view  of  the 
Divine  Being,  but  the  act  of  the  will  by  which  he  is  chosen  as  a 
portion.  Hence,  in  the  distinction  between  constitutional  and 
voluntary  propensities,  the  social  affections,  the  love  of  children, 
desire  of  esteem,  etc.,  are  referred  to  the  former  class,  and  are 
not  considered  as  voluntary.  Yet,  in  the  broad  sense  of  the 
word  will,  assumed  as  the  foundation  of  the  theory,  according  to 
which,  aU  "  inchning  or  being  averse,"  all  "  being  pleased  or  dis- 
pleased with,"  are  acts  of  the  will,  they  are  as  truly  voluntary  as 
the  others.  Now,  when  it  is  asserted  that  no  disposition  is  of  a 
moral  character,  except  so  far  as  it  depends  on  choice  or  prefer- 
ence, and  that  all  morality  lies  in  the  will,  the  whole  meaning 
turns  on  the  sense  in  which  the  word  will  is  taken.  If  taken  in 
its  broader  sense,  this  would  be  admitted  ;  if  in  the  restricted 
sense,  we  should  deny  it  altogether.  Those  who  make  the  asser- 
tion, doubtless  take  it  in  the  latter ;  for  they  say  that  all  that 
precedes  the  decision  of  the  soul,  its  fixing  on  some  object  of  de- 
sire as  its  chief  portion,  is  neither  sinful  nor  holy ;  that  holiness 
consists  in  the  selection  of  God,  and  sin  in  the  choice  of  the 
world,  and  that  there  is  nothing  sinful  nor  holy  but  these 
primary  or  ultimate  choices,  and  the  subordinate  acts  resulting 
from  them.  But  it  is  clear  that  the  term  voluntary  applies  not 
only  to  such  acts  of  choice,  but  to  all  exercises  of  the  affections 
or  desires  preliminary  thereto.  No  one  would  say  that  the  dis- 
position to  love  ourselves,  or  our  children,  depends  on  choice  ; 
and  yet  these  dispositions  are  properly  and  truly  voluntary.  We 
cannot  love  otherwise  than  voluntarily.     When,  therefore,  these 


EEGENERATION.  41 

gentlemen  use  the  word  voluntary,  it  is  in  reference  to  acts  of 
the  will  in  the  restricted  sense,  excluding  the  spontaneous  exer- 
cises of  the  native  propensities  of  our  nature.  They  of  course 
deny  that  Adam  was  created  holy.  The  spontaneous  rising  of 
desire  in  his  mind  to  God  was  neither  holy  nor  unholy.  His 
moral  character  commenced  with  the  first  act  of  choice,  that  is, 
with  his  selection  of  God  from  among  the  various  sources  of  hap- 
piness as  his  chief  good.  Here  lies  one  great  point  of  difference 
between  them  and  common  Calvinists.  President  Edwards  main- 
tains clearly  that  Adam  was  holy  before  this  act  of  choice,  yea, 
before  he  ekercised  "  thought  or  reflection."  And  he  says,  that 
it  is  according  to  our  natural  notions  of  things  that  there  could 
be  no  virtue  in  this  choice,  unless  it  was  determined  by  a  vir- 
tuous disposition.  The  common  judgment  of  men  is,  that  moral 
character  belongs  to  the  desu-e  of  moral  objects.  The  morality 
lies  in  its  nature,  independently  of  its  origin.  Its  being  from  "  a 
kind  of  instinct,"  does  not  destroy  its  moral  character.  The  de- 
sire of  hoKness  is  holy,  no  matter  how  it  rises  in  the  mind.  If 
this  be  so,  a  similar  tendency  of  mind  and  a  similar  desire,  if 
produced  in  our  mind  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit  in  regeneration, 
is  not  "  something  inserted  in  the  soul"  without  influence  on  our 
character.  It  constitutes  us  holy,  as  truly  as  Adam  was  holy  at 
his  first  creation,  though  much  of  sin  may  yet  remain.  It  is  in- 
deed "  mysterious  gratuity  ;"  the  Scriptures  call  it  grace  ;  but 
it  is  still  ours,  from  its  nature,  voluntary  and  active.  It  is  an 
inclination  of  the  heart  ;  and,  as  Dr.  Bellamy  remarks,  an  "  in- 
voluntary inclination  of  the  heart  is  a  contradiction  in  terms." 
He  uses  the  word  voluntary  in  its  larger  sense,  as  Edwards  does, 
and  not  merely  in  that  which  applies  to  a  decision  or  selection 
from  among  different  objects  of  desire.  With  him  all  sponta- 
neous exercises  of  the  mind  are  voluntary  ;  self-love,  the  love  of 
children,  and  all  other  similar  afi'ections.  A  disposition  there^ 
fore  to  these,  or  any  other  exercises,  existing  prior  to  the  exer- 
cises, in  his  view,  does  not  destroy  their  character  as  voluntary, 
nor  their  morality,  if  they  have  reference  to  moral  objects  ;  this 
depends  upon  their  nature,  not  their  origin. 

We  have  already  remarked  that  the  opposite  system  destroys 
the  moral  character  of  the  first  act  (in  reference  to  moral  ob- 
jects) in  Adam,  and  in  regeneration.  We  are  ready  to  admit, 
that  as  the  desire  of  a  holy  object  is  from  its  nature  holy,  so  the 


42  REGENERATION, 

choice  of  such  an  object  as  holy,  is  from  its  nature  good.  But  it 
is  inconceivable  that  holiness,  as  such,  can  be  chosen  without  a 
previous  apprehension  of  its  real  excellence,  and  desire  for  it  as 
such  ;  for  the  choice  is  but  the  determination  of  the  desire.  If, 
therefore,  moral  character  be  denied  to  the  antecedent  desire, 
the  choice  loses  its  moral  character  also.  It  cannot  be  confined 
to  the  act  of  choice,  for  there  can,  in  fact,  be  no  choice  of  a  holy 
object  as  such,  but  from  a  desire  for  it  in  its  true  character,  and 
this  is  a  hoiy  desire,  and  precedes  the  choice.  If  self-love  be 
only  so  far  the  motive  of  this  choice,  that  it  "  prompts  to  the 
choice,  but  not  determines  it,"  what,  we  ask,  does  determine  it  ? 
There  are  but  two  answers  to  this  question.  The  one  is,  that 
the  will  determines  itself,  i.  e.,  the  choice  is  made  in  indifference, 
and  has  clearly  no  moral  character ;  or  it  is  determined  by  a  de- 
sire of  the  object  as  such  (not  mere  desire  of  happiness,  for  that 
only  prompts  the  choice,  not  determines  it),  and  then  the  whole 
theory  is  rehnquished,  for  here  is  the  desire  of  a  holy  object,  not 
merely  as  a  means  of  happiness,  but  for  the  object  as  holy,  which 
must  needs  be  a  holy  desire,  and  being  antecedent  to  the  choice, 
would  be,  according  to  the  theory,  anterior  to  the  commence- 
ment of  holiness. 

The  truth  is,  that  this  whole  system  is  a  forced  and  unnatural 
union  between  Arminian  philosophy  and  Calvinistic  facts  :  a 
union  which  can  neither  be  peaceful  nor  lasting.  Nor  is  this  the 
first  time  that  it  has  been  attempted.  The  favorite  principle  of 
the  opposers  of  the  Augustinian  doctrines,  in  all  ages,  has  been, 
that  moral  character  can  only  belong  to  acts  of  choice  ;  and  of 
course,  that  no  such  thing  as  original  righteousness  or  original 
sin  is  j)ossible  or  conceivable  ;  that  any  other  influence  in  regen- 
eration than  that  of  moral  suasion,  by  which  one  man  is  led  to 
make  a  good  choice,  which  another  man,  under  the  same 
influence,  might  refuse  to  make,  is  inconsistent  with  moral 
agency;  that  the  doctrines  of  election  and  perseverance  of  the 
saints,  presujiposing  that  of  efficacious  grace,  must  necessarily 
be  untrue.  The  first  departures  from  these  doctrines  have  com- 
menced by  adopting  the  main  principle,  and  endeavoring  to 
reconcile  it,  as  far  as  possible,  with  the  facts  involved  in  the 
doctrines  themselves  ;  viz.,  that  all  men  do  sin,  with  absolute 
certainty,  the  moment  they  become  moral  agents  ;  that  the 
influence  of  the  Spirit  is  infallibly  efficacious  :    and  that   all 


REGENERATION.  43 

whom  God  has  chosen  certainly  believe  and  attain  eternal  life. 
But  less  than  a  generation  has  been  commonly  sufficient  to 
break  the  connection,  and  leave  the  philosophical  principle  undis- 
puted master  of  the  field. 

That  this  principle  is  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  original 
righteousness,  is  formally  admitted.  That  it  involves  the  denial 
of  original  sin,  as  this  doctrine  has  been  commonly  held  among 
Augustinians,  is  equally  clear.  According  to  the  prevalent 
doctrine  on  this  subject,  original  sin  consists,  first,  in  the  imputa- 
tion of  Adam's  sin.  This,  it  seems,  has  been  long  exploded. 
Secondly,  in  the  want  of  original  righteousness.  This  is  gone 
too,  for  there  never  was  any  such  thing.  And  thirdly,  in  the 
corruption  of  nature,  that  is,  a  tendency  to  do  what  God  has 
prohibited,  existing  prior  to  all  acts  of  choice,  and  independently 
of  them ;  and  now  this  is  gone.  There  is  no  such  tendency  to 
sin,  as  can  be  considered  a  moral  disposition. 

Although  this  article  has  already  swollen  far  beyond  our  expecta- 
tions, we  cannot  pass  this  subject  without  a  single  remark  on  the 
charge  of  physical  depravity.  The  futility  and  unfairness  of  the 
same  charge,  as  it  regards  the  subject  of  regeneration,  we  have 
endeavored  to  expose  above.  As  this  rests  on  precisely  the  same 
grounds,  it  must  stand  or  fall  with  the  other.  If  there  may  be 
moral  principles  prior  to  moral  acts  (as  we  think  must  be  assum- 
ed, in  the  case  of  Adam,  or  make  the  commencement  of  holiness 
impossible),  then  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  ground  for  this  charge. 
Nor  is  it  the  Calvinistic  doctrine,  that  there  is  a  specific  pro- 
pensity to  sin  (analogous  to  the  holy  disposition  implanted  in 
the  heart  of  Adam)  connatural  with  the  soul  of  man.  None  such 
need  be  assumed,  and  none  such  is  believed  to  exist.  The  mere 
absence  of  a  native  tendency  to  God  leaves  the  soul  in  moral 
confusion  and  ruin.  There  is  no  positive  infusion  of  wickedness. 
The  essential  attributes  and  constitutional  propensities  are 
there,  and  nothing  more.  But  they  are  there  without  a  principle 
of  moral  order  and  subordination.  There  is  no  presiding  spirit 
to  turn  them  to  the  service  of  God.  The  result  of  this  absence 
is  all  manner  of  evil,  and  a  tendency  to  all  this  evil  lies  in  this 
very  state  of  the  soul,  and  exists  prior  to  any  of  its  moral  acts. 
Does  the  withholding  this  predisposition  to  hoHness,  from  a 
being  to  whom  all  the  essential  attributes  of  his  nature  are  left 
unimpaired,  make  God  the  author  of  sin  ?    then  must  he  be 


44  EEGENERA  TION. 

accused  of  being  the  author  of  all  sin  that  results  from  the 
abandonment  of  the  reprobate,  and  of  all  that  by  the  utmost 
exertion  of  power  he  could  prevent.  Nor  is  it  more  difficult  to 
reconcile  this  fact  (that  God  should  withhold  from  the  fallen 
race  of  man  those  communications  which  resulted  in  the  innate 
tendency  to  holiness,  which  fill  the  soul  of  Adam)  with  the 
divine  justice  and  goodness,  than  it  is  the  admitted  fact  that 
he  has  brought,  and  is  still  bringing,  the  countless  millions  of 
the  human  family  into  existence  under  circumstances  so  unfavor- 
able, that  all,  without  exception,  incur  the  penalty  of  eternal 
death  at  the  first  moment  of  moral  agency ;  and  that  moment 
arriving,  too,  at  the  first  dawn  of  intellect,  when  the  first  faint 
flushes  of  moral  feeling  rise  in  the  soul.  If  this  be  no  penalty, 
we  know  not  what  is.  "  To  be  placed  under  a  law,"  says  Cole- 
ridge {Aids  to  Beflection,  p.  168),  "the  difficulty  of  obeying,  and 
the  consequences  of  not  obeying,  which  are  both  infinite,  and  to 
have  momently  to  struggle  with  this  difficulty,  and  to  live  in 
momently  hazard  of  these  consequences — if  this  be  no  punish- 
ment ! — words  have  no  correspondence  with  thoughts,  and 
thoughts  are  but  shadows  of  each  other,  shadows  that  own  no 
substance  for  their  anti-type.  Of  such  an  outrage  on  common 
sense,  Taylor,  (Bishop  Jeremy)  was  incapable.  He  himself  calls 
it  a  penalty  ;  he  admits  that  in  effect  it  is  a  punishment."  It 
is  a  penalty,  too,  according  to  this  theory,  without  transgression ; 
a  punishment  without  a  crime.  We  cannot  see,  therefore,  that 
anything  is  gained  by  the  new  theory  over  the  old  doctrine, 
which  represents  our  race  as  having  enjoyed  a  full  and  fair  and 
favorable  probation  in  their  first  parent,  and  as  being  regarded 
and  treated  as  an  apostate  race  on  account  of  his  rebellion  ;  so 
that  the  withholding  these  divine  communications  which  result- 
ed in  the  first  man,  in  the  moral  image  of  his  Maker,  is  a  penal 
evil,  from  which,  it  is  true,  utter  ruin  results,  but  it  is  the  ruin, 
not  of  innocent,  but  of  fallen  human  beings.  This  doctrine 
involves  no  mysterious  confusion  of  the  identity  of  the  race  with 
that  of  Adam,  and  no  transfer  of  moral  character  from  him  to 
us.  His  act  was  personally  his  own,  and  only  his  ;  it  is  ours 
on  the  representative  principle,  wliich  is  recognized  not  only  by 
Dr.  Hopkins  and  his  followers  distinctly,  but  by  Arminians  and 
Pelagians,'  and  is  so  clearly  taught  by  the  fact,  that  the  race  fell 

'  See  Whitby  on  Romans,  v.  12. 


REGENERATION.  45 

wlien  Adam  fell,  tliat  it  is  admitted  in  reality  even  by  tliose  who 
formally  deny  it. 

But  to  return  to  our  subject.  This  theory  not  only  overthrows 
the  doctrines  which  we  have  just  mentioned,  but  it  throws  the 
Spirit's  influences  almost  entirely  out  of  view.  We  are  not 
speaking  of  the  opinions  of  its  advocates,  but  of  the  tendency  of 
the  theory.  According  to  their  views,  regeneration  consists  in 
the  choice  of  God  as  the  supreme  portion  of  the  soul.  This 
requires  that  the  soul  should  view  him  as  supremely  desirable. 
This  the  sinner  is,  not  only  naturally,  but  morally  able  to  do  ; 
for  his  corruption  does  not  blind  him  to  the  excellence  of  holi- 
ness, or  its  adaptedness  to  promote  his  happiness.  To  secure 
this  happiness  is  the  only  impulse  or  motive  necessary  to  make 
this  choice,  and  he  is  urged  to  make  it,  assured  that  if  he  will 
summon  all  his  powers  to  the  effort,  the  result,  by  the  grace  of 
Grod,  may  follow.  We  think  the  grace  of  God  acts  a  part 
scarcely  more  conspicuous  in  all  this  scheme,  than  it  does  in  the 
enumeration  of  the  titles  of  an  European  monarch.  There  is  no 
blindness  to  the  excellence  of  the  object  of  choice  to  be  removed, 
no  holy  motive  is  necessary  for  the  grand  decision  ;  all  that  is 
required  is  a  practical  conviction  that  it  will  be  for  the  sinner's 
interests.  Firmly  as  these  brethren  may  believe  in  the  necessity 
of  the  Spirit's  interference,  it  is  evident  that  necessity  is  left  out 
of  view  almost  entirely  in  their  theory.  Accordingly,  when  they 
come  to  describe  the  process  of  this  great  change,  the  sinner  is 
the  only  agent  brought  to  view ;  he  is  to  consider,  j)onder,  and 
decide,  for  all  which  he  absolutely  needs  no  assistance,  though  it 
may  be  graciously  afforded.  This  mode  of  representation  stands 
in  strong  contrast  with  the  language  of  Scripture  in  those  pas- 
sages in  which  we  are  said  "to  be  born  of  the  Spirit,"  "to  be 
created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus,"  to  experience  the  workings  "  of 
the  exceeding  greatness  of  the  power  of  God,"  and  many  others 
of  a  similar  character. 

As  to  this  point  which  Dr.  Cox  thinks  so  "  intrinsically  absurd,' 
and  about  which  he  says  so  much,  whether  man  is  passive  in  re- 
generation, it  wiU  be  seen  that,  for  its  own  sake,  it  does  not  merit 
a  moment's  discussion.  It  depends  entirely  on  the  previous 
question.  If  regeneration  be  that  act  of  the  soul  by  which  it 
chooses  God  for  its  portion,  there  is  an  end  of  all  debate  on  the 
subject.     For  no  one  will  maintain  that  the  soul  is  passive  in 


46  BEGENER  ATION. 

acting.  But  if  there  be  any  change  in  the  moral  state  of  the 
soul,  i>y'ioy  to  its  turning  unto  Grod,  then  it  is  proper  to  say,  that 
the  soul  is  passive  as  to  that  particular  point.  That  is,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  author,  and  the  soul  the  subject  of  the  change. 
For  all  that  is  meant  by  the  soul's  being  passive,  is,  that  it  is 
not  the  agent  of  the  change  in  question.  Its  immediate  and  de- 
lightful turning  unto  God  is  its  own  act ;  the  state  of  mind  which 
leads  to  this  act  is  produced  directly  by  the  Spirit  of  Grod.  The 
whole  question  is,  whether  any  such  anterior  change  is  necessary. 
Whether  a  soul  polluted  and  degraded  by  sin,  or  in  Scripture 
language,  carnal,  needs  any  change  in  its  moral  taste  before  it 
can  behold  the  loveliness  of  the  divine  character.  For  that  this 
view  must  precede  the  exercise  of  affection,  we  presume  will  not 
be  denied.  If  this  point  be  decided,  the  propriety  of  using  the 
word  passive  to  denote  that  the  soul  is  the  subject  and  not  the 
agent  of  the  change  in  question,  need  not  give  us  much  trouble. 
Sure  it  is  that  this  change  is  in  Scripture  always  referred  to  the 
Holy  Spirit.  It  is  the  soul  that  repents,  believes,  hopes,  and 
fears,  but  it  is  the  Holy  Spirit  that  regenerates.  He  is  the 
author  of  our  faith  and  repentance  by  inducing  us  to  act,  but  no 
man  regenerates  himself.  The  soul,  though  essentially  active, 
is  still  capable  of  being  acted  upon.  It  receives  impressions  from 
sensible  objects,  from  other  spirits,  and  from  the  Holy  Ghost. 
In  every  sensation,  there  is  an  impression  made  by  some'  external 
object,  and  the  immediate  knowledge  which  the  mind  takes  of 
the  impression.  As  to  the  first  point,  it  is  passive,  or  the  subject ; 
as  to  the  second,  it  is  active,  or  the  agent.  These  two  are  indeed 
inseparably  connected,  and  so  are  regeneration  and  conversion. 
It  is  even  allowable  to  say  that  the  mind  is  passive  considered 
as  the  recipient  of  any  impression,  no  matter  how  communicated. 
Coleridge  says,  "In  attention,  we  keep  the  mind  passive;  in 
THOUGHT,  we  rouse  it  into  activity.  In  the  former,  we  submit 
to  an  impression  ;  we  keep  the  mind  steady  in  order  to  receive 
the  stamp." — P.  252.  Whether  this  is  technically  "  wretched, 
philosophically  wrong,  and  theologically  false,"  or  not,  we  do  not 
pretend  to  say.  AU  that  we  say  is  that  it  is  perfectly  intelligible 
and  perfectly  according  to  established  usage,  to  speak  of  the 
mind  as  passive,  when  considered  as  the  subject  of  an  impression. 
And  if  the  Holy  Spirit  does  make  such  an  impression  on  the 


REGENERATION.  47 

mind,  or  exert  such  an  influence  as  induces  it  immediately  to 
turn  to  Grod,  then  it  is  correct  to  say  that  it  is  passive  in  regene- 
ration, though  active  in  conversion.  However,  this  is  a  very 
subordinate  point ;  the  main  question  is,  whether  there  is  not  a 
holy  "  relish,"  taste,  or  principle  produced  in  the  soul  prior,  in 
the  order  of  nature,  to  any  holy  act  of  the  soul  itself.  If  Dr. 
Cox  can  show  this  to  be  "intrinsically  absurd,"  we  shall  give  up 
the  question  of  "  passivity,"  without  a  moment's  demur.  To  re- 
linquish the  other  point,  however,  will  cost  us  a  painful  struggle. 
It  will  be  the  giving  up  the  main  point  in  debate  between  the 
friends  and  opposers  of  the  doctrines  of  grace  from  Augustine  to 
the  present  day.  It  will  be  the  renunciation,  not  only  of  a 
favorite  principle  of  old  Calvinists,  but  of  one  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  theology  of  Edwards,  Bellamy,  Dwight,  and,  as 
we  believe,  of  the  great  body  of  the  New  England  clergy.  It  will 
be  the  renunciation  of  what  the  church  universal  has  believed  to 
be  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  original  righteousness,  original  sin, 
and  efficacious  grace.  It  will  be  the  rejection  of  that  whole  sys- 
tem of  mingled  sovereignty  and  love  which  has  been  the  founda- 
tion, for  ages,  of  so  many  hopes  and  of  so  much  blessedness  to 
the  people  of  Grod.  And  all  for  what  ?  Because  it  has  been 
discovered,  that  what  is  not  an  act  is  an  entity  ;  that  to  suppose 
the  existence  of  moral  disposition  prior  to  moral  action,  is  mak- 
ing morality  a  substance.  As  we  are  incapable  of  seeing  the 
truth  of  these  axioms,  and  believe  their  assumption  to  be  encum- 
bered with  all  the  difficulties  above  referred  to,  we  are  not 
disposed  to  renounce,  on  their  behalf,  doctrines  which  have 
for  ages  been  held  dear  by  the  best  portion  of  the  Christian 
church. 

Dr.  Cox  demands  what  has  been  the  moral  history  of  these 
ioctrines  ?  It  would  require  more  time  and  space  than  we  now 
command  fully  to  answer  this  question.  Not  to  enter  on  ques- 
tionable ground,  however,  we  would  refer  him  for  an  answer  to 
the  history  of  the  Eeformation.  These  doctrines  were  held  sacred 
by  all  those  men  who  were  God's  great  instruments  in  that  blessed 
work,  and  are  incorporated  in  the  confessions  of  all  the  re- 
formed churches.  We  would  point  him  to  the  history  of  the 
English  Puritans  and  Nonconformists ;  to  the  Puritans  of  New 
England,  from  the  time  of  their  landing  down  to  a  late  period  in 


48  REGENERATION. 

their  history,  and  to  the  present  opinions  of  the  great  body  of 
their  descendants.  We  would  refer  him  to  any  age  or  any  church, 
peculiarly  distinguished  for  genuine  piety.  For  there  is  scarcely 
one  of  the  doctrines  which  he  has  impaled  in  his  introduction, 
which  does  not  enter  into  the  faith  of  the  great  body  of  evangel- 
ical Christians. 


11. 
STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS.^ 

Pkofess'or  Stuart's  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
is  undoubtedly  one  of  the  most  important  productions  of  the 
American  press.  Whether  we  consider  the  importance  of  the 
subjects  which  it  discusses,  or  the  research  and  learning  which  it 
displays,  it  is  clearly  entitled  to  this  elevated  rank.  Every  reader 
must  observe  that  the  author  is  familiar  with  all  the  usual  som'ces 
of  modern  criticism,  that  he  has  been  long  trained  in  the  school 
of  philological  interpretation,  that  he  is  habituated  to  minute  ex- 
amination, and  that,  on  all  ordinary  matters,  he  has  a  clearness 
of  view,  and  a  perspicuity  and  order  of  style  and  method  which 
confer  on  his  work  a  great  and  lasting  value.  This  value  is  greatly 
enhanced  by  the  consideration,  that  Professor  Stuart  having 
formed  himself  on  the  modem  German  school  of  expositors,  has 
produced  a  work  very  different  from  the  usual  productions  of  the 
English  school.  These  latter  are  generally  doctrinal  and  practi- 
cal, rather  than  philological.  However  important  works  con- 
structed after  the  English  model  may  be  to  the  general,  and 
even  the  professional  reader,  yet,  for  the  careful  student  of  the 
Scriptures,  who  is  desirous  of  ascertaining  with  accuracy  and  cer- 
tainty, the  meaning  of  the  Word  of  God,  there  can  be  no  ques- 
tion, that  the  German  is  immeasurably  the  better  and  the  safer 
plan.  There  can  be  no  solid  foundation  for  theological  opinion, 
but  the  original  text  of  Scripture  fairly  interpreted.  We  have, 
therefore,  long  been  in  the  habit  of  regarding  Professor  Stuart  as 
one  of  the  greatest  benefactors  of  the  church  in  our  country,  be- 
cause he  has  been  the  principal  means  of  turning  the  attention 

'  A  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  with  a  translation  and  various 
Excursus.  By  Moses  Stuaet,  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  the  Theological 
Seminary  at  Andover.  Andover :  Printed  and  pubUshed  by  Flagg  &  Gould.  New 
York:  S.  Leavitt,  No.  182,  Broadway.  1832.  Pp.  576.  Princeton  Review,  July, 
1833.  4 


50  STDARTONTHEROMANS. 

of  the  rising  generation  of  ministers  to  this  method  of  studying 
the  Bible.  This  we  doubt  not,  is  the  great  service  of  his  life ; 
a  service  for  which  the  whole  church  owes  him  gratitude  and 
honor,  and  which  will  be  remembered  when  present  differences 
and  difficulties  are  all  forgotten.  We  do  him,  therefore,  un- 
feigned homage  as  the  great  American  reformer  of  biblical  study, 
as  the  introducer  of  a  new  asra,  and  the  most  efficient  opponent 
of  metaphysical  theology.  Alas,  that  he  should  himself  have 
fallen  on  that  very  enchanted  ground,  from  which  it  was  the 
business  and  the  glory  of  his  life  to  recall  his  younger  brethren  ! 

In  perfect  consistency  with  this  high  opinion  of  Professor 
Stuart's  services,  and  of  the  value  of  his  work,  we  still  think  the 
latter  has  very  numerous  and  very  serious  faults.  The  first  and 
most  fatal  seem  to  have  arisen  from  his  not  having  discovered, 
before  writing  the  542d  page,  "that  his  main  design  wasf com- 
mentary, and  not  didactic  theology."  The  work  is  too  theologi- 
cal. The  frequent  discussions  of  this  nature,  in  which  the  author 
indulges,  are  rather  out  of  place,  in  a  work  of  this  kind,  and  are, 
moreover,  singularly  unfortunate.  It  is  in  these  discussions  the 
writer  has  most  signally  failed  ;  misapprehended  the  subject  in 
debate  ;  misconceived  the  meaning  of  the  authors  whom  he 
quotes  ;  contradicted  himself ;  done  violence  to  his  own  theoret- 
ical rules  of  interpretation,  and  gratuitously  denounced  doc- 
trines, which  have  not  only  always  been  regarded  as  part  of  the 
common  faith  of  Protestant  Christendom,  but  which  he  himself 
over  and  over  either  asserts  or  implies.  Evidence  of  the  justice 
of  these  remarks  will  be  given  as  we  proceed. 

It  is  a  difficult  task  to  review  a  commentary  satisfactorily.  It 
would  be  of  little  use  to  go  over  the  chapters  in  detail,  and  com- 
mend the  instances  of  happy  interpretation.  And  to  attempt  to 
refute  those  of  a  contrary  character,  would  require  us  to  write  a 
commentary  ourselves.  We  intend,  therefore,  to  pass  by  much 
that  we  think  excellent,  and  much  that  we  think  erroneous,  and 
to  confine  our  attention,  at  least  for  the  present,  to  Professor 
Stuart's  exposition  of  Romans  v.  12-19,  and  the  Excursus  there- 
with connected.  This  is  the  most  characteristic  and  important 
part  of  his  work. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  this  passage  is  a  very  difficult  portion 
of  the  word  of  God.  As  such  it  has  always  been  regarded,  and 
must  still  be  considered,  after  all  that  has  been  written  on  the 


STUART     ON     THE     ROMANS.  51 

subject.  Still,  we  have  no  hesitation  in  saying,  the  grand  diffi- 
culty is  to  get  round  it.  It  inculcates  a  doctrine  which  many 
men  are  very  unwilling  to  admit.  To  get  rid  of  this  doctrine,  is 
the  difficulty.  Hence  these  lamentations  over  its  obscurity.  A 
similar  obscurity  rests,  in  view  of  many,  over  the  ninth  chapter 
of  this  epistle  ;  and  for  a  similar  reason.  Now,  we  venture  to 
assert,  that  those  who  have  no  special  prejudice  against  the  doc- 
trine of  imputation,  and  the  federal  headship  of  Adam  and 
Christ,  are  not  so  much  disposed  to  complain  of  the  obscurity  of 
the  passage  before  us.  It  is  only  when  a  man  is  predetermined 
that  it  does  not,  and  that  it  shall  not,  teach  either  these  doc- 
trines, or  that  of  the  transmission  of  a  corrupt  nature,  that  he  is 
so  much  at  a  loss  to  know  what  it  does  teach  ;  and  it  is  really 
enough  to  move  any  one's  commiseration,  to  see  such  a  man  as 
Professor  Stuart  so  obviously  and  hopelessly  in  conflict  with  the 
plain  meaning  and  argument  of  the  apostle  ;  fruitlessly  strug- 
gling to  disengage  himself  from  its  toils,  forced  to  admit  what  he 
denies,  and  teach  what  he  rejects,  traveling  backwards  and  for- 
wards bewildered  in  the  mazes  of  own  exposition.  We  feel  en- 
titled to  express  this  confidence,  in  the  first  place,  because  we 
feel  it  ;  in  the  second,  because  the  great  body  of  impartial  com- 
mentators, not  merely  Calvinistic,  but  Pelagian,  Neological,  and 
Infidel,  agree  in  every  essential  part  of  the  ordinary  view  ;  and 
thirdly,  because  the  objections  to  this  interpretation  are  all  theo- 
logical :  we  say  all,  because  those  of  an  exegetical  character  are 
hardly  worthy  of  consideration.     But  let  us  proceed. 

According  to  the  common  view  of  this  passage,  it  naturally  re- 
solves itself  into  four  parts  : 

I.  Verse  12,  which  contains  this  general  proposition  :  All 
men  die,  or  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners,  on  account  of 
Adam — i.  e.,  of  his  sin. 

II.  Verses  13  and  14,  which  prove  this  proposition.  The 
proof  is  this  :  the  universality  of  death  can  in  no  other  way  be 
accounted  for.  Neither  the  law  of  Moses,  nor  the  law  of  nature, 
is  sufficiently  extensive  to  account  for  all  bearing  this  penalty  ; 
therefore  it  must  be,  that  men  are  subject  to  death,  on  account 
of  Adam. 

He  is  therefore  a  type  of  Christ — that  is,  there  is  this  striking 
point  of  resemblance  between  them  :  as  we  are  condemned  on 
account  of  the  one,  so  are  we  justified  on  account  of  the  other. 


52  STUART    ON     THE     ROMANS. 

III.  Verses  15,  16,  17,  are  a  commentary  on  this  proposition, 
by  whicli  it  is  at  once  illustrated  and  limited. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  if  it  is  consistent  with  the  divine  charac- 
ter, that  we  should  die  for  the  offence  of  one,  hoio  much  more, 
that  we  should  live  for  the  righteousness  of  one. 

2.  We  are  condemned  in  Adam,  for  one  sin  only  ;  Christ  saves 
us  from  m^any. 

3.  Christ  not  only  saves  us  from  evil,  but  advances  us  to  a  state 
of  endless  life  and  glory  ;  (or  this  verse  17  may  be  considered  as 
a  repetition  and  amplification  of  the  15th.) 

IV.  Verses  18,  19,  resume  and  carry  out  the  sentiment  and 
comparison  of  verse  12th.  As  we  are  condemned  for  the  offence 
of  one,  so  are  we  justified  by  the  righteousness  of  another  ;  for  if 
on  account  of  the  disobedience  of  one,  we  are  regarded  and 
treated  as  sinners,  so  on  account  of  the  obedience  of  the  other, 
we  are  res-arded  and  treated  as  righteous. 

Verses  20  and  21  form  the  conclusion  of  the  chapter,  and  are 
designed — 1st.  to  answer  the  natural  objection,  that  this  view  of 
the  method  of  salvation  makes  the  law  useless  ;.  and  2d.  that 
the  grace  of  Grod  in  the  gospel  of  his  Son,  superabounds  and  tri- 
umphs over  sin,  however  produced  or  increased. 

In  this  analysis,  we  have  stated  in  general  terms  the  meaning 
of  the  several  portions  of  the  passage.  The  correctness  of  this 
statement,  and  the  force  of  the  sever^il  subordinate  clauses,  we 
shall  endeavor  to  exhibit  as  we  proceed. 

Professor  Stuart,  in  his  introduction  to  chap,  vi.,  viii.,  properly 
remarks,  that  correct  views  as  to  the  general  course  of  a  writer's 
thoughts  in  a  given  passage,  "is  a  sine  qua  non  to  a  right  ex- 
egesis of  the  whole.  How  can  we  correctly  explain  a  writer, 
unless  we  rightly  apprehend  his  aim,  and  the  scope  of  his  dis- 
course ?  It  is  impossible,"  etc.,  p.  249.  It  will,  therefore,  not 
be  questioned,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  no  little  importance,  to  as- 
certain the  design  and  scope  of  the  apostle  in  the  passage  be- 
fore us.  On  this  subject,  there  are  various  opinions  :  we  shall 
give  but  three  : 

1.  Some  say  the  apostle's  main  design  is,  to  exalt  our  views 
of  the  blessings  procured  by  Christ,  and  to  show  that  these  bless- 
ings superabound  over  all  the  evils  of  the  fall. 

2.  Others  say,  that  his  object  is,  to  coanteract  the  narrow- 
minded  prejudices  of  the  Jews,  by  showing  that,  as  the  evils  of 


STUART    ONTHEROMANS.  53 

the  fall  extended  to  all,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  so  do  the  bless- 
ings of  the  gospel. 

3.  Others  think,  that  his  design  is,  to  illustrate  the  great  gos- 
pel truth  of  justification  on  the  grounds  of  the  merits  of  Jesus 
Christ,  by  a  reference  to  the  other  grand  analogous  fact  in  the 
history  of  our  race — the  condemnation  of  men,  on  the  ground  of 
the  demerit  of  Adam ;  and  thus  answer  the  natural  objection. 
How  can  the  merit  of  one  man  justify  others  ? 

Professor  Stuart  says,  p.  200,  that  the  first  view  here  given  is 
so  obviously  correct,  that,  "  the  most  unpractised  critic  can 
hardly  fail  to  discern  the  general  object,  as  thus  stated."  If  he 
is  wrong  here,  he  must,  on  his  own  principles,  be  wrong  all  the 
way  through ;  and  that  he  is  wrong,  we  think  no  critic,  prac- 
tised or  unpractised,  can  fail  to  discern,  who  will  attend  to  the 
few  following  considerations.  In  the  first  place,  the  idea  of  the 
superabounding  of  the  blessing  of  the  gospel  over  the  evils  of 
the  fall,  is  not  expressly  stated  until  the  21st  verse  (that  is, 
until  the  whole  comj^arison  is  gone  through  with)  ;  and  then,  in 
immediate  connection  with  the  question.  For  what  purpose  did 
the  law  enter  ?  Secondly,  although  this  idea  is  contained  in 
verses  15,  16,  17,  yet,  as  Professor  Stuart  admits,  these  verses 
are  parenthetical,  and,  of  course,  might  be  left  out,  and  still  the 
main  design  be  expressed.  As  verses  13,  14,  are  subordinate  to 
verse  12,  and  verses  15,  16,  17,  to  the  last  clause  of  verse  14,  it 
is  evident  that  verses  12,  18,  and  19,  must  contain  the  main  idea 
of  the  passage.  In  these  verses,  the  idea  of  the  superabounding 
of  grace  is  not  included  at  all.  Professor  Stuart  has  exalted  a 
mere  corollary  into  the  main  design  and  scope  of  the  passage. 

2.  More  might  be  said  in  favor  of  the  second  view  ;  but  this 
also,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel,  is  inconsistent  with  the  course 
of  the  argument.  Paul  is  not  yet  speaking  of  the  applicability 
of  the  gospel  to  the  case  of  the  Gentiles. 

3.  That  the  third  view  mentioned  above  is  the  only  correct 
one,  we  think  wiU  appear  from  the  following  considerations  : 
Let  it  be  remembered,  that  there  are  two  grand  subjects  of  dis- 
cussion in  this  epistle,  viz.,  the  doctrine  of  justification,  and  the 
calling  of  the  Gentiles  ;  in  other  words,  the  method  of  salvation, 
and  the  persons  to  whom  that  method  is  to  be  proposed.  The 
consideration  of  the  fii'st  extends  to  the  close  of  the  eighth  chap- 
ter ;  the  discussion  of  the  second  commences  with  the  ninth. 


54  STUART     ON    THE     ROMANS. 

From  the  18th  verse  of  the  first  chapter,  Paul  argues  against 
the  possibility  of  justification  by  works,  because  all  men.  Gen- 
tiles and  Jews,  are  sinners,  and  guilty  before  God.  Having,  in 
verses  19  and  20  of  chapter  iii.,  arrived  at  that  conclusion,  from 
the  21st  verse  he  unfolds  the  gospel  method.  This  he  confirms 
throughout  the  fourth  chapter  from  the  case  of  Abraham,  the 
declaration  of  David,  the  nature  of  the  law,  etc.  In  the  fifth,  he 
commences  by  stating  some  of  the  consequences  of  this  method 
of  justification  ;  we  have  peace  with  God,  access  to  him,  confi- 
dence in  his  favor,  and  assurance  of  eternal  life  founded  on  the 
love  of  God,  and  the  fact  that  we  are  justified  (not  for  any  thing 
in  us,  or  done  by  us),  but  by  the  blood  of  his  Son.  Wherefore, 
verse  12,  (that  is,  since  we  are  justified  for  what  one  man  has 
done,)  as  we  have  been  brought  into  a  state  of  condemnation  by 
one  man,  so  by  one  man  are  we  justified  and  saved.  There  is 
nothing  more  wonderful  in  the  obedience  of  one  saving  many, 
than  in  the  disobedience  of  one  destroying  many  ;  nor  so  much. 
If  the  one  has  happened,  much  more  may  the  other.'  This 
is  a  brief,  but,  as  we  believe,  correct  view  of  the  context,  and 
shows  clearly  enough  the  design  of  the  apostle  in  the  passage  be- 
fore us. 

As  the  general  context  requires  this  view  of  the  apostle's  ob- 
ject, so  it  is  the  only  one  with  which  the  course  of  the  argument 
can  be  made  to  agree.  The  fact  is,  that  the  whole  argument 
bears  so  lucidly  and  conclusively  on  this  point,  that  it  is  no 
wonder  that  men  are  involved  in  perplexity,  when  they  wish  to 
make  it  bear  on  any  other.  What  the  course  of  argument  is,  we 
have  stated  above.  All  men  are  subject  to  death^  on  account  of 
Adam.  This  is  proved  in  verses  13,  14  ;  and  being  proved,  is  all 
the  way  through  assumed  to  illustrate  the  other  great  truth.  If 
we  thus  die,  are  thus  condemned,  much  more  may  we,  by  a  simi- 
lar arrangement,  be  saved.  This  is  so  clearly  the  prominent  idea 
of  the  apostle,  that  Professor  Stuart  cannot  avoid  seeing  and 
admitting  it  before  he  gets  through. 

Thirdly,  not  only  the  general  context  and  the  course  of  argu- 

•  In  chapters  vi.  and  vii.  the  apostle  answers  the  standing  objection,  that  this 
method  of  justification  leads  to  licentiousness,  by  proving  that  it  is  the  only  effectual 
means  of  sanctification ;  the  law  being  as  incompetent  for  the  one  purpose  as  the 
other.  Then  comes  the  swelling  grandeur  of  the  eighth  chapter,  in  which  he  exults 
in  the  certainty  and  security  of  this  method  of  salvation. 


STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS.  55 

ment  require  this  ♦'iew  of  the  apostle's  object,  but  also  all  the 
leading  clauses  separately  considered.  This  point,  therefore,  will 
become  clearer  at  every  step,  as  we  advance.  The  delightful 
fact,  that  the  grace  of  the  gospel  superabounds  over  the  evils  of 
the  fall,  is,  however,  not  the  less  true,  because  its  exhibition  is 
not  the  main  object  of  the  passage  before  us. 

As  Professor  Stuart  takes  a  false  view  of  the  design  of  this 
passage,  we  are  not  surprised  to  find  him  involved  in  perj^lexity, 
at  the  very  first  step  in  his  exposition.  He  is  very  much  at  a 
loss  about  the  connection,  as  indicated  by  the  w^ords  6td  rovro^  in 
the  beginning  of  the  12th  verse,  which  he  says  "  are  so  difficult," 
in  this  connection.  He  devotes  more  than  two  pages  to  this 
point.  We  suspect  his  readers  see  very  little  difficulty  in  the 
case.  The  whole  doctrine  of  the  preceding  part  of  the  epistle, 
and  the  assertion  of  the  immediately  preceding  verses,  is,  that  by 
one  man,  not  by  our  merits,  we  are  justified.  What  more 
natural  association,  or  what  plainer  inference,  than  the  analogy 
between  this  and  the  other  grand  fact  in  the  history  of  men. 
Tholuck  and  Flatt,  Professor  Stuart  remarks,  both  represent 
these  words  as  illative,  "  but  they  do  not  show  lioiv  the  sequel  is 
a  deduction  from  what  precedes."  Neither  of  these  writers  seems 
to  have  felt  any  difficulty  in  the  case.  Tholuck  dismisses  the 
words  in  two  lines,  explaining  them  thus,  '■'^  Aus  dem  bisher 
Gesagten  geld  hervoi-" — i.  e.,  "  It  follows  from  what  has  been 
said." 

So  much  for  the  scope  of  the  passage  and  its  connection.  Let 
us  now  inquire  into  the  meaning  of 

VERSE    XII. 

"  Wherefore,  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and 
death  by  sin  ;  and  so  death  passed  on  all  men,  for  that  all  have 
sinned." 

Every  reader  feels  that  something  is  wanting  to  complete  the 
sense  in  this  verse.  We  have  here  only  one  half  of  the  compari- 
son. The  question  is,  where  are  we  to  seek  the  other.  We 
think  with  Professor  Stuart,  that  the  majority  of  interpreters  are 
right,  "  in  regarding  verses  13-17,  as  substantially  a  parenthesis, 
(thrown  in  to  illustrate  a  sentiment  brought  to  view  in  the  pro- 
tasis verse  12)  ;  and  I  find,"  he  continues,  "  a  full  apodosis  only 
in  verses  18,  19,  where  the  sentiment  of  verse  12  is  virtually  re- 


56  STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS. 

sumed  and  repeated,  and  where  the  apodosis  regularly  follows, 
after  an  ovtm  Kai."  As  this  is  the  only  satisfactory  view  of  the 
passage,  it  is  important  that  it  should  be  home  in  mind.  Verses 
18,  19,  then,  it  is  admitted,  resume  and  repeat  the  sentiment  of 
verse  12  :  of  course,  whatever  is  obscure  in  verse  12,  may  fairly 
be  illustrated  from  verses  18  and  19. 

It  is  by  no  means  unusual  for  the  apostle  thus  to  interpret 
himself ;  and  after  qualifying  or  confirming  a  position,  resume 
and  carry  out  his  original  idea.  In  tlie  present  instance,  Paul, 
intending  to  run  a  parallel  between  the  fall  and  the  restoration 
of  men,  begins  with  the  usual  sign  of  a  comparison — as  by  one 
man  sin  and  death  entered  into  the  world,  so  by  one  man  justifi- 
cation and  life.  But  the  j^rotasis  needed  confirmation,  and  he 
therefore  gives  it,  before  fuUy  expressing  the  apodosis  ;  and,  as 
at  the  close  of  this  confii-mation,  the  idea  of  the  correspondence, 
which  he  had  in  his  mind,  is  really  expressed  by  calling  Adam  a 
type  of  Christ,  he  feels  that  this  position  needed  limitation  and 
illustration,  and  he,  therefore,  gives  both  in  verses  15,  16,  and 
17,  and  then  resumes  and  states  fully  the  main  idea. 

There  is  considerable  diversity  of  opinion,  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  clause,  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  hy  sin. 

1.  By  djiapria,  or  sin,  in  this  case,  Calvin  and  a  host  of  com- 
mentators, ancient  and  modern,  understand  corruption,  deprav- 
ity, vitiositas;  and  by  entered  into  the  world,  not  simply  com- 
menced, but  was  spread  over  the  world  :  so  that  the  idea  is,  all 
men  became  corrupt,  and  consequently,  subject  to  death  through 
Adam. 

2.  Others,  suppose  that  the  meaning  is  merely,  sin  commenced 
with  Adam,  and  death  as  its  necessary  consequence.  He  was 
the  first  sinner,  and  the  first  sufferer  of  death. 

3.  Others  understand  the  apostle  as  saying — through  Adam, 
men  became  sinners.  Adam  was  the  cause  of  sin  and  death — 
dq  Tov  icooixov  being  equivalent  with  elq  -navrag  rovg  dv&pojnovg. 
Hence  the  phrase,  sin  entered  into  the  world,  is  equivalent  with 
all  sinned,  or  became  sinners. 

We  think  the  last  is  the  true  sense,  because  the  second  leaves 
out  of  view,  the  main  idea  expressed  by  dc'  iv6g,  and  because 
Paul  evidently  intended  to  express  a  comparison,  which  is  not, 
as  Adam  died  for  his  sin,  so  all  men  die  for  theirs  ;  but,  as 
Adam  was  the  cause  of  sin  and  death,  so  Christ  of  righteousness 


STUAKTONTHEEOMANS.  57 

and  life.  We  shall  not  however,  discuss  this  point  here,  as  the 
whole  matter  will  come  up  more  advantageously  when  we  come 
to  the  latter  part  of  the  verse. 

Another  interesting  inquiry  is,  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word 
death  in  this  passage.  And  here  again  we  are  happy  to  be  able 
to  agree  with  Professor  Stuart,  who,  in  accordance  with  the 
views  of  the  great  body  of  evangelical  commentators,  understands 
the  word  in  its  ordinary  biblical  sense,  when  connected  with  sin. 
The  death  which  is  on  account  of  sin,  is  surely  the  death  which 
is  the  wages  of  sin.  All  the  penal  consequences  of  sin  are,  there- 
fore, included  in  the  term,  "  Indeed,"  says  Professor  Stuart, 
"  I  see  no  philological  escape  from  the  conclusion,  that  death  in 
the  sense  oi  penalty  for  sin  in  its  full  measm-e,  must  be  regarded 
as  the  meaning  of  the  writer  here." — P.  208.  As  it  is  not  our 
purpose  to  write  a  commentary  on  this  passage,  we  do  not  ad- 
duce the  grounds  of  this  conclusion.  They  may  be  seen  in  Pro- 
fessor Stuart,  and  other  commentators.  Where  we  agree,  there 
is  no  necessity  for  argument. 

An  important  inquiry.  Professor  Stuart  says,  arises  respecting 
the  words  not  ovruyg,  viz.,  does  the  aj)ostle  mean  to  say,  that  in 
consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  sin  and  death  came  upon  all  men  ? 
Or,  does  he  mean,  that  as  Adam  died  on  account  of  his  sin,  so, 
in  like  manner,  all  men  die,  because  all  sin  ?  In  other  words, 
do  these  words  intimate  a  connection  between  the  sin  of  Adam, 
and  the  sin  and  condemnation  of  his  race  ?  or,  merely  the  inva- 
riable connection  between  sin  and  death  ?  Professor  Stnart  de- 
cides for  the  latter.  On  page  215,  he  says,  "  Consider  what  the 
writer  asserts  :  '  Death  came  on  Adam  on  account  of  sin,  and  in 
like  manner  death  came  upon  all  men,  because  all  have  sinned,' " 
But  what  becomes  of  the  61  tv6g^  if  this  be  a  correct  view  of  the 
substance  of  the  verse  ?  Surely,  these  words  are  too  prominent 
here,  and  in  their  frequent  repetition  throughout  the  passage,  to 
be  thus  left  out  of  view.  It  was  through  one  man,  that  sin  came 
upon  aU  men,  and  that  all  die.  Besides,  as  remarked  above,  it 
was  confessedly  not  the  object  of  the  apostle  to  compare  the  case 
of  Adam  with  that  of  other  men,  and  say,  as  Adam  died,  so  all 
men  die  ;  but  to  compare  Adam  and  Christ,  as  the  one  caused 
death,  so  the  other  caused  life.  Again,  Professor  Stuart  himself, 
admits  that  verses  18,  19,  resume  and  repeat  the  sentiment  of 
verse  12,  and  that  those  verses  clearly  convey  the  idea,  that 


58  STUARTONTUEROMANS. 

.  r 

Adam's  sin  is  the  cause  of  the  condemnation  of  his  race.  Of 
course,  then,  verse  12  must  express  this  idea.  He  says,  indeed, 
it  is  "  hinted"  in  the  words  elai'j?ide  and  diqXde  ;  but  if  the  com- 
parison between  Adam  and  Christ  be  the  design  of  the  whole 
passage,  this,  which  is  the  main  idea,  should  be  something  more 
than  ^'■hinted  at,"  in  this  verse,  which  is  acknowledged  to  con- 
tain the  first  half  of  the  comparison/  This  matter,  however, 
will  appear  clearer  when  we  have  considered  the  last  clause  in 
the  verse,  t-0'  w  navreg  ijiiaprov. 

We  agree  with  Professor  Stuart  in  thinking,  that  rendering 
£0'  w,  in  wliojn,  is  inconsistent,  if  not  absolutely  with  usage,  yet 
with  the  construction  of  the  sentence,  and  therefore  cheerfully 
accede  to  the  rendering  in  that,  or  because  that.  The  imjDortant 
question  now  presents  itself,  what  is  meant  by  navreg  ijfiapTov  ? 
On  this  subject,  there  are  three  opinions. 

1st.  That  it  means,  all  have  actually  and  personally  sinned. 

2d.  All  have  become  corrupt  or  depraved  ;  and 

3d.  All  became  guilty,  i.  e.,  became  sinners,  and  were  so  re- 
garded and  treated. 

Professor  Stuart  and  a  multitude  of  others  adopt  the  first 
view.  Then,  the  sentiment  of  the  verse  is,  "As  by  one  man  sin 
invaded  the  world  and  death  on  account  of  sin,  so  in  like  man- 
ner, death  has  passed  on  all  men,  because  all  sin."  Sin  began 
with  Adam,  as  he  died  for  his  sin,  so  all  men  die  for  theirs.  The 
connection  between  Adam's  offence  and  the  sin  and  condemna- 
tion of  men,  is  not  expressed :  it  is  merely  "  hinted  at," 

'  We  have  found  considerable  diiSculty,  in  getting  a  clear  idea  of  Professor  Stuart's 
view  of  this  passage.  On  page  200,  he  says,  that  verses  18,  19,  virtually  resume 
and  repeat  the  sentiment  of  verse  12 ;  and  yet,  on  page  213,  he  says,  "  But  it  does 
not  follow,  because  verse  19  asserts  an  influence  of  Adam  upon  the  sinfulness  of 
men,  that  the  same  sentiment  must  therefore  be  affirmed  in  verse  1 2  ;  certainly  not, 
that  it  should  be  directly  asserted  in  the  same  manner." 

On  the  same  page,  he  says,  "It  is  possible  that  Kat  oCruf  may  imply  this;  (the 
connection  between  Adam's  offence  and  the  sinfulness  of  his  posterity,)  which,  with 
Mrasmus  and  Tholuck,  we  might  construe,  et  ita  factum  est,  i.  e.,  and  so  it  happened, 
or  and  thus  it  was  brought  about,  viz.,  thus  it  was  brouglit  about,  that  all  men  came 
under  sentence  of  death,  and  also  became  sinners,  etc.  *  *  *  Yet  I  am  not  per- 
suaded, that  this  is  tlie  true  method  of  interpreting  the  words  Kat  ovtuc"  What  here 
is  admitted  as  possible,  is  declared  in  page  215,  "to  bo  wholly  inadmissible." 

We  suspect,  by  the  way,  that  Tholuck  would  hardly  recognise,  "  so  it  happened 
that  all  men  sinned  in  Adam,  and  were  sentenced  to  death,  by  reason  of  this  sin," 
as  a  correct  exposition  of  his,  "  Insofern  in  Jenem  Ersten,Sunde  and  Uebel  hervortrat, 
ging  es  auch  auf  alle  Theile  dcs  Gcschlechts  iiber." 


STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS.  59 

The  second  view  is  given  by  Calvin,  and  by  a  large  body  of 
the  most  respectable  commentators,  ancient  and  modern.  The 
meaning  of  the  verse,  according  to  them,  is,  "■  As  by  Adam  de- 
pravity or  corruption  entered  the  world,  and  death  as  its  conse- 
quence, and  hence  death  has  passed  on  all  men,  since  all  are 
corrupt,"  so,  etc.  This,  although  it  expresses  a  truth,  is  a  view 
of  the  passage  which,  as  we  shall  see,  cannot  be  carried  consist- 
ently through  ;  and  it  misses  the  real  point  of  comparison  be- 
tween Christ  and  Adam,  Paul  does  not  mean  to  say,  that  as 
Adam  was  the  source,  or  cause  of  corruption,  so  Christ  is  the 
cause  of  holiness  ;  but  as  the  offence  of  the  one  was  the  ground 
of  our  condemnation,  so  the  righteousness  of  the  other,  is  the 
ground  of  our  justification. 

According  to  the  third  view,  the  sentiment  of  the  verse  is, 
"As  through  one  man  men  became  sinners,  and  consequently 
exposed  to  death,  and  thus  death  has  passed  on  all  men,  because 
all  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners,  (on  his  account),"  (so, 
on  account  of  one  are  they  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous,) 
In  favor  of  this  view,  the  authority  of  a  large  number  of  com- 
mentators might  be  adduced.  To  us,  it  appears  decidedly  the 
correct  one,  and  that  which  alone  harmonizes  with  the  rest  of 
the  passage.  In  support  of  this  interpretation,  we  would  re- 
mark : 

1.  That  it  is  on  all  hands  admitted,  that  the  usus  loquendi 
admits  of  this  sense  of  the  words  "  all  have  sinned."  Thus  in 
Grenesis,  xUii.  9,  Judah  says  to  Jacob,  "  If  I  bring  him  not  again, 
let  me  hear  the  hlamej"  In  Hebrew  and  Greek,  it  is,  "I  will  be 
a  sinner,"  i.  e.,  let  me  be  so  regarded  and  treated.  The  same 
form  of  expression  occurs  in  chapter  xliv.  34.  Bathsheba  says, 
"  I  and  thy  son  Solomon,  shall  be  sinners,"  1  Kings,  chapter  i. 
21  ;  according  to  our  version,  which  expresses  the  sense  correctly, 
"shall  be  counted  offenders,"  This  usage,  indeed,  is  familiar 
and  acknowledged, 

2,  Professor  Stuart  himself  admits,  that  verses  18  and  19  ex- 
press the  same  idea  with  verse  12.  But  in  those  verses,  the 
apostle  teaches,  that  the  offence  of  Adam  was  the  ground  of  our 
condemnation,  i.  e.,  that  on  his  account,  we  are  regarded  and 
treated  as  sinners.     This  Professor  Stuart  is  forced  to  admit/ 

'  With  regard  to  verse  10,  ho  gives  indeed  a  different  view;  but,  as  we  shall 
fibov',  at  the  expense  of  consistency. 


60  STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS. 

He  over  and  •over  acknowledges,  that  the  apostle,  in  various 
parts  of  this  passage,  represents  death  as  coming  on  all  men,  on 
account  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  antecedently  to  any  act  of  their 
own.  Thus  on  page  226,  he  says,  "  Verse  15  asserts,  the  many 
were  brought  under  sentence  of  death  by  the  offence  of  Adam." 
This  he  exjolains  as  meaning,  not  that  this  offence  was  the  occa- 
sion of  our  becoming  sinners,  and  thus  incurring  death  ;  but  that 
this  offence  was  the  ground  of  the  infliction  of  death  antecedent 
to  any  act  of  our  own.  "  In  like  manner,"  he  adds,  "  all  receive 
some  important  benefits  from  Christ,  even  without  any  concur- 
rence of  their  own."  See  page  228.  Verse  16,  he  tells  us,  re- 
peats the  same  sentiment  in  a  more  specific  manner,  and  "  adds 
an  explanation,  or  rather  a  confirmation  of  it,*'  page  229.  He, 
therefore,  renders  this  verse,  "  The  sentence  by  reason  of  one 
(offence)  was  unto  condemnation  (was  a  condemning  sentence,) 
etc."  As  this  is  a  confirmation  of  the  preceding  sentiment,  it 
can  only  mean  "  this  sentence  of  condemnation  was  passed  on  all  ' 
men  on  account  of  Adam's  one  offence."  The  17tli  verse  repeats 
again,  he  tells  us,  page  226,  the  sentiment  of  the  two  preceding ; 
and  in  commenting  on  this  verse,  page  234,  he  teaches,  in  ex- 
press terms,  that  "  all  are  in  a  state  of  condemnation  by  reason 
of  the  offence  of  one,"  i.  e.,  on  the  ground  of  the  offence  of  one, 
antecedent  to  any  act  of  their  own,  as  his  words  must  mean  in 
connection  with  what  he  had  just  before  asserted.  Here  then  it 
is  expressly  taught,  that  men  are  condemned,  i.  e.,  regarded  and 
treated  as  sinners,  on  account  of  Adam's  sin.  The  18th  verse 
contains  the  same  doctrine,  because  the  identical  words  of  verse 
16  are  therein  repeated,  and,  according  to  Professor  Stuart, 
verse  18  resumes  and  repeats  the  sentiment  of  verse  12.  If, 
therefore,  things  which  are  equal  to  the  same  thing  are  any 
longer  equal  to  each  other,  verse  12  must  express  the  idea,  that 
all  men  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners,  on  account  of 
Adam's  sin. 

Again,  in  the  19th  verse  it  is  said,  "As  we  are  constituted  sin- 
ners by  the  disobedience  of  Adam,  so  we  are  constituted  right- 
eous by  the  obedience  of  Christ."  And  as  it  is  admitted,  that 
this  verse  carries  out  the  comparison  commenced  in  the  12  th,  if 
we  can  ascertain  what  Paul  means  by  saying,  "we  are  consti- 
tuted sinners,"  we  may  be  certain  of  what  he  intended  when  he 
said,  through  Adam,  "'  all  sinned."     But  in  the  19th  verse,  as 


STUAKT     ON    THE    ROMANS.  61 

we  shall  endeavor  to  prove,  the  words  will  admit  of  no  other  in- 
terpretation than  the  one  mentioned  above,  viz.,  we  are  regarded 
and  treated  as  sinners  ;  this,  therefore,  must  he  the  meaning  of 
the  other  expression  in  verse  12. 

Now  we  would  request  any  impartial  reader  to  review  these 
passages.  Let  him  remember,  that  we  have  given  Professor 
Stuart's  own  exposition  of  them,  (except  of  verse  19)  :  that  he 
even  cannot  fail  to  see,  that  Paul  says,  for  one  offence  loe  die — 
for  one  offence  toe  are  condemned — for  one  offence  death  reigns 
over  all— for  the  disobedience  of  one  we  are  treated  as  sinners — 
and  we  see  not  how  any  can  resist  the  conclusion,  that  verse  12 
(which,  it  is  admitted,  expresses  the  same  sentiment,)  teaches 
not  the  frigid  doctrine,  that,  as  Adam  sinned  and  died,  in  like 
manner  all  sin  and  die  ;  nor  yet,  that  Adam's  sin  was  the  occa- 
sion of  our  sinning  ;  nor  yet,  again,  that  through  Adam  we  are 
all  corrupt ;  but  that  on  his  account  we  are  subj'ect  to  death,  or 
are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners. 

3.  As  the  phrases  to  which  reference  has  just  been  made,  are 
admitted  to  mean,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  not  the  mere  oc- 
casion, but  the  ground  of  condemnation  to  death,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  in  verses  15,  16,  17,  18,  and  19,  this  idea  is 
assumed  as  already  proved.  In  each  case,  it  is  introduced  by  a 
"  for  if/'  or  some  equivalent  expression.  This,  of  course,  implies, 
that  verse  12  contains  this  proposition,  and  that  verses  13  and 
14  (which  it  is  admitted,  establish  the  sentiment  of  verse  12,) 
prove  it  ;  for,  how  could  the  apostle  at  every  turn  say,  "/or  if 
we  die  for  Adam's  sin,"  if  nothing  had  been  said  beforehand  of 
our  being  subject  to  death  on  his  account  ?  But,  according  to 
Professor  Stuart,  verse  12  expresses  no  such  idea. 

4.  Unless  this  be  the  meaning  of  the  12th  verse,  no  satisfac- 
tory explanation  can  be  given  of  verses  13  and  14.  They  are 
introduced  by  yap,  and  are  obviously  intended  to  establish  the 
doctrine  of  the  preceding  verse.  Now,  if  the  doctrine  of  the  12th 
verse  be  only  that  all  have  personally  sinned,  and  are,  therefore, 
subject  to  death,  then  verses  13  and  14  are  designed  to  prove 
that  men  were  sinners  before  the  time  of  Moses ;  and  this,  in 
fact,  is  the  view  which  Professor  Stuart  and  others  adopt.  But 
who,  in  all  the  world,  denied  this  ?  Did  the  Jews,  who  called 
the  Grentiles  "sinners,"  as  a  name,  and  whose  scriptures  are 
filled  with  denunciations  of  the  vices  of  the  heathen  living  be- 


62  STUAKT    ON    THE    ROMANS. 

fore,  as  well  as  after,  the  law  ?  Besides,  how  utterly  frigid  and 
destitute  of  all  point  and  purpose,  in  this  connection,  is  such  a 
sentiment.  It  is  most  unnatural  to  suppose  that  the  aj^ostle 
should  stop  in  the  midst  of  such  a  passage  to  answer  the  cavil — 
"  as  sin  is  the  transgression  of  a  law,  there  was  no  sin  in  the 
world  before  the  time  of  Moses,  and  therefore  it  is  not  true,  that 
all  have  sinned" — when  the  very  persons  for  whose  benefit  this 
cavil  is  answered,  believed  that  men  were  then  not  only  sinners, 
but  most  peculiarly  and  atrociously  such.  We  do  not  believe  an 
instance  can  be  found  in  all  of  Paul's  writings,  in  which  he  takes 
the  trouble  to  answer  an  objection  which  the  objector  himself  is 
supposed  to  know  to  be  futile.  Yet,  such  Professor  Stuart  sup- 
poses is  the  object  of  these  verses.  He  might  well  remark, 
"  that  no  intelligent  or  candid  man"  could  make  such  an  objec- 
tion. 

Those  who  cannot  receive  this  view  of  these  two  verses,  and 
yet  reject  the  interpretation  of  verse  12,  which  we  are  endeavor- 
ing to  support,  are  very  much  at  a  loss  how  to  explain  them. 
The  unsuccessful  attempts  to  derive  any  pertinent  meaning  from 
them,  are  almost  numberless.  On  tlie  other  hand,  if  we  regard 
the  12th  verse  as  teaching  that  all  men  sin  in  Adam,  or,  to  ex- 
press the  same  idea  in  different  words,  are  regarded  and  treated 
as  sinners  on  his  account,  then  how  natural  and  obvious  the  con- 
nection and  reasoning.  All  men  die  on  account  of  Adam's  sin, 
is  the  proposition  to  be  proved.  The  universality  of  death,  (the 
infliction  of  penal  evils.)  is  the  medium  of  proof.  How  is  this 
universality  to  be  accounted  for  ?  You  may  account  for  the  fact, 
that  some  men  die  by  the  violation  of  the  divine  law,  given  to 
Moses  ;  and  for  the  fact,  that  multitudes  of  others  die  from  the 
violation  of  the  divine  law  written  upon  their  hearts  ;  but  this 
will  not  account  for  all  dying.  Thousands  die  who  have  never 
personally  sinned,  and,  consequently,  if  death  be  on  account  of 
sin,  if  it  be  penal,  they  must  be  accounted  as  sinners  for  the 
offence  of  Adam.' 

'  We  are  gratified  to  find,  from  page  212,  that  even  Professor  Stuart  has  no  objec- 
tion to  the  "  sentiment,"  all  have  sinned  in  Adam.  "  It  must  be  confessed,"  he  says, 
"that  there  is  no  more  ground  for  objection  to  the  sentiment  which  the  expression 
('all  have  sinned,')  thus  construed  would  convey,  than  there  is  to  the  sentiment  in 
verses  17  and  19.  It  is  not  on  this  ground  that  I  hesitate  to  receive  this  interpreta- 
tion." His  difBculties  are  philological;  yet,  there  is  no  philology  in  what  follows,  as 
far  as  we  can  perceive.     The  difficulty  stated,  is  this:  Paul  says,  men  die  who  have 


STUAKT     ON    THE     ROMANS.  63 

5.  It  need  hardly  be  repeated,  that  this  interpretation  is  alone 
consistent  with  the  main  design  of  the  apostle.  It  is  not,  as  be- 
fore remarked,  his  object  to  illustrate  the  fact  that  Christ  is  the 
author  of  holiness,  from  the  fact  that  Adam  was  the  occasion  of 
leading  men  to  sin  ;  but  he  is  treating  the  subject  of  justifica- 
tion, and  illustrating  the  great  gospel  truth,  that  men  may  be 
treated  as  righteous,  on  account  of  what  Christ  has  done,  from 
the  fact  that  they  have  been  treated  as  sinners  on  account  of 
what  Adam  did. 

And,  finally,  as  a  further  confirmation  of  this  exposition,  it 
may  be  remarked,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  whole  race  being  in- 
volved in  the  sin  and  condemnation  of  Adam,  was  clearly  and 
frequently  taught  by  the  Jewish  doctors  ;  and,  there  is  little 
reason  to  doubt,  it  was  the  prevalent  opinion  of  the  Jews  at  this 
period.  If  this  were  the  case,  we  cannot  refuse  to  admit,  that 
Paul  designed  to  teach,  what  his  readers  could  hardly  fail  to  un- 
derstand him  to  assert.  Accordingly,  impartial  men,  who  do  not 
themselves  hold  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  do  not  hesitate  to 
acknowledge  that  Paul  teaches  it  in  this  passage.  This  is  the 
case  with  Knapp,  as  quoted  in  a  former  number  of  this  work. 

VEKSES    XIII,    XIV. 

We  have,  necessarily,  anticipated  most  of  the  remarks  which 
we  deem  it  requisite  to  make,  respecting  these  verses.  They  are 
evidently  designed  to  confirm  the  sentiment  of  verse  12.  If  that 
verse  teaches,  as  we  have  endeavored  to  show  it  does,  that  all 
•men  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners  on  account  of  the  sin  of 
Adam,  there  can  be  little  difficulty  in  understanding  them, 

never  sinned  after  the  likeness  of  Adam's  transgression ;  but  how,  it  is  asked,  is  their 
sin  different  from  his,  when  it  is  the  very  same  sin  imputed  to  them,  or  propagated 
to  them?  But  cannot  men  be  said  to  be  treated  as  sinners  on  account  of  Adam's  sin, 
and  it  still  be  true,  that  they  did  not  sin  as  he  did?  Is  it  not  involved  in  the  very 
terms  of  the  proposition,  that  they  did  not  sin  as  Adam  did,  i.  e.,  personally,  if  they 
are  only  (quoad  hoc)  treated  as  sinners  on  his  account?  So  Christ  is  declared  to  be 
without  sin,  and  yet  treated  as  a  sinner.  We  are  persuaded  this  objection  will  pre- 
vent no  one,  except  Professor  Stuart,  from  receiving  the  sentiment  of  verse  12,  as 
thus  explained,  if  this  be  all.  It  is  equally  destitute  of  weight  when  directed  against 
the  idea  of  a  vitiated  nature  derived  from  Adam  being  the  ground  of  men's  dying; 
for  this  vitiated  nature  is  not  Adam's  act;  his  first  sin  propagated  to  all  men. 

It  is  well  to  remark  here,  that  on  this  page  Professor  Stuart  uses  the  phrases 
treated  as  sinners  on  account  of  Adam,  and  sinners  in  Mm,  as  equivalent.  It  would 
have  been  a  great  comfort  to  his  readers,  had  he  continued  thus  to  regard  them. 


64  STUAKTONTHE    ROMANS. 

The  phrase  "  sin  loas  in  the  toorld"  is  e\ddently  of  the  same 
import  with,  "  men  were  sinners" — sinners,  in  the  sense  of  rravTE^ 
Tjiiaprov  of  verse  12 ;  either  actual  sinners,  or  corrupt,  or  were  re- 
garded and  treated  as  sinners.  The  last  is,  of  course,  the  true 
meaning,  if  our  exegesis  of  the  preceding  verse  is  correct.  All 
men  are  so  regarded,  Paul  says,  on  account  of  Adam  ;  for,  they 
were  so  treated  before  the  time  of  Moses,  and,  consequently,  not 
for  the  violation  of  his  law,  etc. 

The  words,  ''sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is  no  laio,'^  are  in- 
terpreted by  Professor  Stuart  after  Calvin  and  others,  as  mean- 
ing, is  not  imputed  by  men,  as  sin — that  is,  men  do  not  regard 
it,  or  consider  it  as  sin.  But,  in  the  first  place,  it  is,  to  say  the 
least,  very  doubtful,  whether  the  word  tAAoyeZrat  can  be  properly 
so  rendered  ;  and,  in  the  second,  the  phrase,  to  impute  sin, 
spoken  in  reference  to  God,  is  so  common  in  the  Scriptures,  that 
there  can  be  little  doubt  the  words  are  here  to  be  understood 
in  the  ordinary  way.  The  only  reason  for  departing  from  this 
sense  here,  is  the  supposed  difficulty  of  interpreting  the  passage, 
when  the  words  are  so  explained  ;  but  this  difiiculty  vanishes,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  if  the  sense  of  verse  12  be  rigidly  appre- 
hended. 

Professor  Stuart,  in  commenting  on  this  verse,  says,  page  217, 
et  seq.,  there  are  some,  "  who  state  the  whole  of  the  apostle's 
reasoning  in  the  following  manner,  viz.  :  '  Men's  own  sins  were 
not  imputed  to  them  on  the  ground  of  their  transgressing  any 
law,  until  the  law  of  Moses  was  given  ;  yet,  they  were  counted 
sinners,  (aiiapria  ijv  tv  Koafj.o)')  ;  consequently,  it  must  have  been 
by  reason  of  Adam's  sin  imputed  to  them,  inasmuch  as  their  own 
offences  were  not  imputed.' "  We  should  not  notice  this  pass- 
age, if  Professor  Stuart  did  not  seem  to  ascribe  this  revolting 
doctrine  to  all  who  believe  in  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin.  It 
is  perfectly  plain,  from  what  follows,  that  he  has  no  reference  to 
the  opinion  of  such  men  as  Whitby,  who  understand  the  apostle 
as  teaching  that  men  did  not,  anterior  to  the  time  of  Moses,  in- 
cur the  specific  evil  of  natural  death  by  their  own  transgressions. 
Though  sinners  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  so  regarded  and  pun- 
ished, yet  their  sins  were  not  imputed  to  death  :  this  was  a 
punishment  all  incurred  in  Adam.  This  is  altogether  a  different 
view  from  that  which  Professor  Stuart  here  has  in  his  mind.  He 
argues  to  show,  that  men  were  accountable  for  their  own  trans- 


STUART    ON    THE    KOMANS.  66 

gressions,  and  that  men  never  were  counted  of  God  as  without 
actual  sin  ;  of  course,  he  ascribes  the  negative  of  these  propo- 
sitions to  those  whom  he  opposes.  Now,  who  are  they,  who  thus 
teach  that  "men's  personal  sins  were  not  at  all  reckoned"  until 
the  law  of  Moses  ?  He  tells  us,  they  are  those  who  say,  "  men 
have  only  original  or  imputed  sin  charged  to  their  account."  He 
names  Augustine  and  President  Edwards,  as  though  they  held 
this  opinion.  He  asks,  "How  can  the  sin  of  Adam  be  imputed 
to  all  his  posterity,  and  yet  their  own  personal  sins  be  not  at  all 
reckoned  ;"  and  on  page  223,  he  seems  to  make  all  who  suppose 
the  dissimilitude  referred  to  in  the  14th  verse  consists  in  the 
fact  that  Adam  was  an  actual  sinner,  and  others  to  whom  refer- 
ence is  here  made,  sinners  only  by  imputation,"  hold  this  doc- 
trine. For  this  is  the  interpretation  he  says  he  has  proved  to  be 
contrary  to  the  declarations  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 
From  all  this,  it  would  really  appear,  that  Professor  Stuart 
means  to  represent  all  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  as 
teaching  that  men  were  not  accountable  for  their  own  sins  be- 
fore the  time  of  Moses.  It  would  be  an  easy  matter  for  any  one 
to  refute  the  doctrine,  if  he  is  permitted  to  state  it  in  this  man- 
ner, provided  he  can  find  readers  ignorant  enough  to  receive  such 
statements. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  no  such  absurdity  is  involved 
in  the  interpretation  given  above.  When  Professor  Stuart  says, 
that  men  die  on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  verse  16,  does  he  mean 
to  say  they  do  not  die  on  account  of  their  own  ,?  Or,  when  he 
says  that  for  "one  offence"  they  are  condemned,  would  he  admit 
they  are  not  condemned  for  their  own  multiplied  transgressions  ? 
We  presume  not.  In  like  manner,  when  we  represent  the  apostle 
as  arguing,  that  men  are  regarded  as  sinners  on  account  of 
Adam's  sin,  because  the  universality  of  death  cannot  be  ac- 
counted for  in  any  other  way,  we  leave  the  fuU  accountability  of 
men  for  their  own  sins  of  thought,  word,  and  deed,  completely 
unimpaired. 

It  is  not  only  unjust  to  ascribe  the  opinion  in  question  to  those 
who  hold  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  but  we  know  no  class  of 
men  to  whom  it  can  be  fairly  attributed,  as  Professor  Stuart 
states  it.  He  certainly  does  Tholuck  and  Schott,  especially  the 
former,  injustice,  in  ascribing  the  substance  of  this  opinion  to 
them,    Tholuck  says  expressly,  "  This  non-imputation  does  hyno 

5 


66  STUARTONTHEBOMANS. 

means  remove  guilt,  since  Paul  has  expressly  asserted,  that  men 
(without  a  revelation)  were  without  excuse."  He  says,  indeed, 
that  the  accountability  of  men  for  their  individual  transgressions, 
decreases  in  proportion  to  their  ignorance  and  insensibility  (when 
this  is  not  the  result  of  their  own  conduct),  but  he  does  not,  even 
in  substance,  assert  that  men  are  chargeable  only  with  imputed 
sin  before  the  time  of  Moses.  The  phrase,  "  Sin  is  not  imputed 
where  there  is  no  law,"  interpreted  in  reference  to  God,  Tholuck 
understands  comparativelyt  Professor  Stuart  makes  it  mean, 
"  sin  is  not  regarded ;"  this  he  also  must  take  in  a  comparative 
sense,  since  it  is  not  true,  that  men  without  a  written  law  have 
no  sense  of  sin.  If  Professor  Stuart  will  allow  Tholuck  and 
Schott  the  hberty  he  assumes  himself,  the  whole  absurdity  of  the 
opinion  he  opposes  is  gone.  That  these  writers  make  the  apostle 
reason  inconclusively,  we  think  true  ;  but  we  do  not  think  Pro- 
fessor Stuart  has  done  them  justice.  It  appears  to  us,  indeed, 
very  strange,  that  he  should  represent  them  as  holding  in  sub- 
stance, that  men  were  counted  sinners  before  the  time  of  Moses, 
"  by  reason  of  Adam's  sin  being  imputed  to  them,"  when  neither 
of  these  writers  holds  the  doctrine  of  imputation  at  all.  It  seems, 
in  fact,  to  be  the  main  design  of  Schott's  dissertation  to  disprove 
it.  On  page  335,  he  says,  "  Vidimus  hucusque,  verbis  v.,  12, 
nuUa  inesse  vestigia  dogmatis  de  imputatione  peccati  Adamitici." 
And  as  to  Tholuck,  his  whole  exposition  is  founded  upon  a  dif- 
ferent principle.  It  would  really  be  worth  Professor  Stuart's 
while  to  make  a  distinction  between  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
■  sin,  and  the  transmission  of  a  vitiated  nature  from  him  to  his 
posterity.  As  all  other  theological  writers  make  this  distinction, 
he  might  as  well  do  so.  We  are  sure  the  works  of  such  writers 
would  be  clearer  to  him,  than  they  can  be  at  present  ;  for  it 
must  seem  strange  to  him  to  hear  them  saying  in  one  breath, 
that  corruption,  or  vitiositas,  has  been  propagated  to  all  Adam's 
posterity,  and  in  the  next,  deny  that  his  sin  is  imputed  to  them, 
if  these  two  things  are  the  same. 

But  to  return  from  this  long  digression.  The  next  clause  of 
any  difficulty  in  these  verses,  is  "  even  over  them  who  had  not 
sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression.^'  The  sim- 
ple question  is,  what  is  the  point  of  diflerence  intended  by  the 
apostle  ?  Is  it,  that  those  referred  to  had  not  broken  any  posi- 
tive, or  any  externally  revealed,  law  ?     Or  is  it,  that  they  had 


STUARTONTHEROMANS.  67 

not  sinned  personally  ?  As  there  is  no  doubt  the  words  may 
express  either  idea,  the  only  question  is,  which  best  suits  the 
context  ?  And  here  we  may  remark,  that  there  can  be  little 
doubt  on  this  point,  if  our  exegesis  of  the  preceding  verses  is  cor- 
rect. If  it  is  Paul's  object  to  prove,  that  men  are  treated  as 
sinners  (i.  e.,  die)  on  account  of  Adam,  then  is  it  essential  that 
he  should  show  that  there  is  a  class  which  die,  who  are  not  per- 
sonally sinners.  This  class  is  not  the  whole  mass  of  men  (even 
from  Adam  to  Moses),  but  a  certain  set  only  out  of  this  general 
class.  Hence,  secondly,  it  is  to  be  noticed,  that  the  very  con- 
struction of  the  passage  would  seem  to  require  this  interpreta- 
tion. Paul  says,  death  reigned  over  all,  from  Adam  to  Moses, 
even  over  those  who  had  not  sinned  as  Adam  did.  Here  an  evi- 
dent distinction  is  marked  between  two  classes  of  the  victims  of 
death  ;  one  general,  and  the  other  subdivision  under  it.  But  if 
the  latter  clause  be  descriptive  of  the  general  class  from  Adam 
to  Moses,  this  distinction  is  entirely  lost.  It,  of  course,  would 
not  do  to  say,  death  reigned  over  aU  who  had  not  broken  any 
positive  law,  even  over  those  who  had  not  broken  any  positive 
law.  The  second  clause  must  mark  a  peculiar  class.  Death 
reigned  over  all  men,  even  over  those  whose  death  cannot  be  ac- 
counted for  on  the  ground  of  their  personal  transgressions.  An- 
other great  objection  to  the  opposite  view  is,  that  if  it  be  adopted, 
no  satisfactory  explanation  can  be  given  of  the  connection  of 
these  verses  with  the  j^receding,  nor  of  the  apostle's  argument. 
According  to  the  view  adopted  by  Professor  Stuart,  we  piiist  as- 
sume what  we  know  to  be  incorrect,  that  the  Jews  thought  the 
Gentiles  were  not  sinners  ;  and  that  Paul  argues  to  prove  they 
were,  even  though  they  had  no  written  law.  According  to  Tho- 
luck's  view,  the  apostle's  argument,  as  Professor  Stuart  correctly 
remarks,  is  entirely  inconclusive.  He  would  make  the  apostle 
reason  virtually  thus,  "As  men  were,  comparatively  speaking, 
not  responsible  for  their  offences,  when  involved  in  ignorance  and 
destitute  of  a  revelation,  the  cause  of  their  death  is  to  be  sought 
in  their  participation  of  the  corrupt  nature  of  Adam."  In  this 
argument  there  is  no  force,  unless  it  be  assumed  that  men  were 
entirely  free  from  responsibility  for  actual  sin,  before  the  time  of 
Moses — an  assumption  which  Tholuck  rejects,  as  inconsistent 
with  truth  and  the  apostle's  doctrine.  In  short,  we  know  no  in- 
terpretation of  this  passage,  but  the  ordinary  one  given  above, 


68  STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS. 

which  makes  the  apostle  argue  conclusively,  and  express  a  senti- 
ment at  once  pertinent  and  important. 

In  what  sense,  then,  is  Adam  a  type  of  Christ  ?  According  to 
our  view,  the  answer  is  plain  :  The  point  of  resemblance  is,  that 
as  Adam's  sin  was  the  ground  of  the  condemnation  of  many,  so 
Christ's  righteousness  is  the  ground  of  their  justification.  That 
this  is  the  correct  view,  we  think  evident  from  what  has  already 
been  said,  and  will  become  more  so  from  what  follows. 


VERSES    XV,,    XVI.,    XVII. 

These  verses  are  a  commentary  on  the  last  clause  of  the  14th 
verse — Adam  is  a  type  of  Christ,  There  is  a  strong  analogy  be- 
tween them  ;  and  yet,  there  are  striking  and  instructive  points  of 
difference.  The  first  (verse  15)  is  derived  from  the  diversity  of 
the  results  they  produce,  viewed  in  connection  with  the  charac- 
ter of  God.  The  one  brought  death,  the  other  life  :  if,  then,  we 
die  on  account  of  what  one  man  did,  liow  much  more  shall  we 
live  on  account  of  what  one  has  done.  If  the  one  fact  is  consist- 
ent with  the  divine  character,  how  much  more  the  other.  It  is 
clear,  therefbre,  that  the  apostle  designs  to  illustrate  the  cardinal 
idea  of  the  gospel,  viz.,  to  the  imputation  of  the  merit  of  one  to 
a  multitude,  or  the  justification  of  many  on  the  ground  of  the 
righteousness  of  one. 

The  most  important  phrase  in  this  verse,  and  that  on  which 
the  interpretation  of  the  whole  depends,  is  the  second  clause — 
'■^For  if  by  the  offence  of  one  the  many  die."  That  there  is  a 
causal  connection  between  the  sin  of  Adam  and  the  death  of  his 
posterity  here  asserted,  must  of  course  be  admitted.  The  only 
question  is,  as  to  its  nature.  Does  Paul  mean  to  say,  that 
Adam's  offence  was  the  occasion  of  men's  becoming  sinful,  or  of 
their  committing  sin  ;  and  that  thus  on  this  account,  they  be- 
come subject  to  death  ?  Or,  does  he  mean,  that  Adam's  was  the 
ground  of  their  exposure  to  death,  antecedent  to  any  transgres- 
sions of  their  own  ?  That  the  latter  is  his  meaning,  we  think 
very  evident,  for  the  following  reasons  : 

1.  It  is  not  to  be  questioned  that  the  words  admit  as  naturally 
of  this  explanation  as  the  other.  "  By  the  offence  of  one,  many 
die,"  is  the  assertion  :  whether  the  offence  is  the  mere  occasional 
cause,  or  the  judicial  ground,  of  their  dying,  must  be  determined 


STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS.  69 

from  the  context.     No  violence  is  done  the  words^  by  this  inter- 
pretation. 

2.  This  interpretation  is  not  only  possible,  but  necessary,  in 
this  connection,  because  the  sentiment  expressed  in  this  verse  is 
confessedly  the  same  as  that  taught  in  those  which  follow  ;  and 
they,  as  we  shall  endeavor  to  show,  admit  of  no  other  exposition. 
The  sentence  of  condemnation,  it  is  there  said,  has  passed  on  all 
men  for  one  offence  of  one  man. 

3.  The  whole  drift  and  design  of  the  apostle's  argument  re- 
quires this  interpretation.  As  it  was  not  his  design  to  teach 
that  Christ  was  either  the  source  of  sanctification,  or  the  occasion 
of  men  securing  eternal  hfe  by  their  own  goodness  ;  so  it  would 
be  nothing  to  his  pui-pose  to  show,  that  Adam  was  the  occasion 
of  men  becoming  wicked,  and  thus  incurring  death  for  their  own 
offences. 

Happily,  there  is  no  necessity  for  arguing  this  point  at  present. 
Professor  Stuart  interprets  the  phrase  precisely  as  we  do.  He 
teaches  very  explicitly,  that  the  apostle  does  not  make  the  of- 
fence of  Adam  the  mere  occasion  of  the  death  of  his  posterity, 
but  that  it  was  the  ground  of  its  infliction.  They  die  on  account 
of  his  sin,  independently  of,  and  antecedent  to,  any  offence  of 
their  own.  This,  which  we  submit  is  the  true  unsophisticated 
doctrine  of  imputation,  is,  according  to  Professor  Stuart,  the 
doctrine  of  Paul.  It  will,  therefore,  not  do  for  him  any  longer, 
either  to  disclaim  the  doctrine,  or  contemn  its  advocates.  Lest 
the  reader  should  be  incredulous  on  this  point,  and  deem  it  im- 
possible that  so  warm  an  opposer  of  a  doctrine  should  thus  him- 
self expressly  teach  it,  we  refer  him  to  the  analysis  of  verses  15, 
16,  17,  on  page  226,  and  to  all  that  is  said  on  verse  15.  We  can 
here  give  a  few  specimens  only  of  his  language.  "  Adam  did  by 
his  offence  cause  ■^dvarog  to  come  on  all  without  exception,  inas- 
much as  all  his  race  are  born  destitute  of  holiness,  and  in  such  a 
state  that  their  passions  will,  whenever  they  are  moral  agents, 
lead  them  to  sin.  All  too  are  heirs  of  more  or  less  suffering.  It 
is  true  then,  that  all  suffer  on  Adam's  account ;  that  all  are 
brought  under  more  or  less  of  the  sentence  of  death,"  page  227. 
Of  course,  a  man's  being  born  destitute  of  holiness,  exposed  to  a 
certainty  of  sinning,  is  not  on  account  of  any  thing  in  himself. 
It  is  not  on  account  of  his  own  sins,  that  this  evil  (Mvarog) 
comes  upon  him ;  its  infliction  is  antecedent  to  any  act  of  his 


70  STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS. 

own.  This  is  imputation.  This  is  what  Professor  Stuart  says, 
has  happened  to  all  the  posterity  of  Adam ;  although  it  is  pre- 
cisely what  he  affirms,  page  239,  is  entirely  repugnant  to  Scrip- 
ture, in  opposition  to  justice,  and  to  the  first  principles  of  moral 
consciousness. 

Again,  "  To  say  that  oi  -okXol  dni^avov  did  ASdii^  is  not  to  say, 
that  all  have  the  sentence  executed  on  them  in  its  highest  sense 
(which  is  contradicted  by  fact)  ;  but  it  is  to  say,  that  in  some 
respect  or  other,  all  are  involved  in  it ;  that,  as  to  more  or  less  of 
it,  all  are  subjected  to  it  ;  and  that  all  are  exj)osed  to  the  whole 
of  the  evil  which  death  includes,"  page  228.  We  presume,  few 
believe  that  death  in  its  highest  sense,  eternal  misery,  is  actually 
"  executed"  on  all  men,  on  account  of  Adam's  sin.  We  readily 
admit,  Paul  teaches  no  such  doctrine  ;  but,  according  to  Profes- 
sor Stuart,  he  does  teach  that  death  (penal  evil,  according  to  his 
own  subsequent  explanation),  comes  on  all  men  antecedently 
"  to  any  voluntary  act  of  their  own."  This  is  the  whole  doctrine 
of  imputation.  It  is  but  putting  this  idea  into  other  words,  to 
say,  "  that  men  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners  on  Adam's 
account ;"  for,  to  be  treated  as  a  sinner,  is  to  be  made  subject  to 
the  ■&dva~og  threatened  against  sin.  It  matters  not  what  this 
MvaTog  is.  Professor  Stuart  himself  says,  it  is  "  evil  of  any  hind." 
The  mere  degrees  of  evil  surely  do  not  alter  the  principle.  It 
never  entered  any  one's  mind,  that  the  death  threatened  against 
all  sin  and  all  sinners,  was  the  same  precise  form  and  amount  of 
evil.  It  is  evil  of  any  and  every  kind  consequent  on  sin,  and 
differs,  in  character  and  amount,  in  every  individual  case  of  its 
infliction.  Taken,  therefore,  as  Professor  Stuart  explains  it,  in 
this  general  sense,  it  is  mere  trifling  to  maintain  that  the  doc- 
trine of  imputation  is  rejected  by  one  man,  who  holds  that  it 
involves,  in  a  given  case,  so  much  suffering,  and  retained  by  an- 
other who  holds  it  involves  either  less  or  more.  Zachariae  makes 
it  include,  in  this  case,  only  natural  death,  and  yet  avows  the 
doctrine  of  imputation  ;  Professor  Stuart  makes  it  include  a 
thousand-fold  more,  yet  says  he  rejects  imputation.  According 
to  him,  it  includes  the  loss  of  original  righteousness,  the  cer- 
tainty of  actual  sin,  and  temporal  sufferings.  Now,  tliese  are 
tremendous  evils  ;  viewed  in  connection  with  the  moral  and  im- 
mortal interests  of  men,  they  are  inconceivable  and  infinite.   All 


STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS.  71 

this  evil  comes  on  men,-  not  for  any  offence  of  their  own,  but 
solely  on  account  of  Adam's  sin. 

We  are  at  a  loss  to  conceive  what  Professor  Stuart  can  object 
to  in  the  common  doctrine,  that  all  men  are  subject  to  death, 
t.  e.,  penal  evil,  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam  .^  Will  he  say, 
that  it  is  shocking  to  think  of  myriads  of  men  suffering  forever, 
simply  for  what  one  man  has  done  ?  Happily,  we  hold  no  such 
doctrine.  We  believe  as  fully  and  joyfully  as  he  does,  that  the 
grace,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  secures  the  salvation  of  all  who 
have  no  personal  sins  to  answer  for.  Will  he  say,  that  it  is  in- 
consistent with  the  divine  goodness  and  justice,  that  men  should 
be  condemned  for- the  sin  of  another  ?  But  this  is  his  own  doc- 
trine, taught  too  plainly  and  frequently,  to  be  either  mistaken 
or  forgotten.  Will  he  say,  I  do  not  hold  the  penalty  to  be  so 
severe  as  you  do  ?  Loss  of  holiness,  temporal  suffering,  certainty 
of  sinning,  and  a  consequent  exposure  to  eternal  death — this  is  a 
heavier  penalty  than  that  which  Turrettin  supposes  to  be  di- 
rectly inflicted  on  account  of  Adam's  sin.  Will  be  further 
answer,  I  hold  that  Christ  has  more  than  made  up  the  evils  of 
the  fall  ?  For  whom  ?  For  all  who  have  no  personal  sins  ?  So 
say  we.  Yea,  for  all  who  will  accept  of  his  grace  ;  so  say  we 
again. 

We  would  fain  hope  that  no  film  of  prejudice  or  prepossession 
is  so  thick  as  to  prevent  the  reader  from  perceiving,  that  Pro- 
fessor Stuart  teaches  the  doctrine  of  imputation  as  fully  as  any 
one  holds  or  teaches  it  ;■  and  secondly,  that  his  objections  are 
either  founded  in  misconception,  or  directed  against  what  he  ad- 
mits to  be  a  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  If  he  is  so  constituted  as  to 
believe,  that  the  evils,  above  referred  to,  come  upon  us  on  ac- 
count of  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  yet  be  horrified  at  the  idea  that 
one  man  should  die  for  the  iniquity  of  another,  we  must  console 
ourselves  with  the  conviction,  that  it  is  an  idiosyncrasy,  with 
which  no  other  man  can  sympathize. 

The  second  point  of  difference  between  Christ  and  Adam 
which  the  apostle  mentions,  is  stated  in  the  16tli  verse,  viz. : 
Adam  brings  on  us  the  guilt  of  but  one  sin  ;  Christ  frees  us  from 
the  guilt  of  many.  In  other  words,  in  Adam  we  are  condemned 
for  one  offence  ;  in  Christ,  we  are  justified  from  many.  We  give 
this  verse  in  the  translation,  and  with  the  explanatoiy  clause  of 
Professor  Stuart,  as  it  appears  on  page  230  :  "  Yea,  [the  sen- 


72  STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS. 

tence,]  by  one  who  sinned,  is  not  like  the  free  gift ;  for  the  sen- 
tence by  reason  of  one  [offence]  was  imto  condemnation  [was  a 
condemning  sentence] ;  but  the  free  gift  [pardon]  is  of  many  of- 
fences, imto  justification,  i.  e.,  is  a  sentence  of  acquittal  from 
condemnation."  We  think  this  a  correct  exhibition  of  the  mean- 
ing of  the  oriacinal.  The  most  interesting  clause  in  the  verse,  is 
the  second,  "  the  sentence  was  for  one  oifence  unto  condemna- 
tion"— K^ifia  tf  tvoq  elg  KaraKpiiia.  The  same  question  presents 
itself  with  regard  to  these  words,  as  in  relation  to  the  correspond- 
ing clause  in  the  preceding  verse.  Does  Paul  mean  to  say, 
that  the  one  offence  of  Adam  was  the  occasion  of  our  being 
brought  into  condemnation,  inasmuch  as  it  occasioned  our  be- 
coming sinners  ?  Or,  does  he  mean  that  his  offence  was  the 
ground  of  our  condemnation  ?  The  latter  is,  as  we  think,  the 
only  interpretation  which  the  words  in  this  connection  can  possi- 
bly bear.  This  seems  evident  in  the  first  place,  from  the  ordin- 
ary meaning  of  the  terms.  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that 
KQijia  means  properly  a  judicial  decision  ;  and  we  are  willing  to 
admit,  that  it  often  by  metonomy  means,  punishment  or  con- 
demnation. But  it  cannot  have  that  meaning,  here  ;  for  it  is 
connected  with  KaraKQ^La,  since  the  apostle  would  then  say  con- 
demnation or  punishment  leading  to  condemnation,  has  come  on 
aU  men.  Besides,  every  one  here  recognizes  the  common  Hellen- 
istic construction  of  elq  with  the  accusative  after  verbs,  signifying 
to  he,  to  become,  to  regard,  instead  of  the  nominative.  The  sen- 
tence was  to  condemnation,  is,  therefore,  the  same  as  saying  the 
sentence  loas  condemnation,  or,  as  Professor  Stuart  correctly 
renders  it,  "a  condemning  sentence."  This  condemning  sentence 
is  said  to  be,  by,  or  for,  one  offence.  What  is  the  natural  mean- 
ing of  such  an  expression  ?  Is  it,  that  the  offence  was  the  oc- 
casion of  men's  sinning  ?  Or,  tliat  it  was  the  ground  of  the 
sentence  ?     Surely,  the  latter. 

But  secondly,  in  this  place  we  have  the  idea  of  pardon  on  the 
one  hand,  which  supposes  that  of  condemnation  on  the  other. 
If,  as  Professor  Stuart  says,  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  means, 
we  are  pardoned  for  many  offences,  the  former  must  mean  we  are 
condemned  for  one.  Hence,  thirdly,  we  remark,  that  the  whole 
point,  meaning,  and  truth,  of  the  passage  is  lost,  unless  this  in- 
terpretation be  adopted.  The  antithesis  in  this  verse  is  evi- 
dently between  the  one  offence^  and  the  many  offences.     To  make 


STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS.  73 

Paul,  therefore,  say  that  the  offence  of  Adam  was  the  occasion 
of  our  being  involved  in  a  multitude  of  crimes,  from  all  of  which 
Christ  saves  us,  is  to  make  the  evil  and  the  benefit  perfectly- 
tantamount.  Adam  leads  us  into  offences,  from  which  Christ 
saves  us.  Where,  then,  is  the  contrast,  if  the  evil  incun-ed 
through  Adam  is  identical  with  the  evil  from  which  Christ  saves 
us  ?  Paul  evidently  means  to  assert,  that  the  evil  from  which 
Christ  saves  us  is  far  greater  than  that  which  Adam  has  brought 
upon  us.  He  brought  the  condemnation  of  one  offence  only  ; 
Christ  saved  us  from  many. 

Fourthly  ;  this  interpretation  is  so  obviously  the  correct  one, 
that  Professor  Stuart  himself  fully  admits  it.  It  is  involved  in 
the  translation  of  the  verse,  which  we  just  quoted  from  him, 
"  the  condemning  sentence  was  by  reason  of  one  offence  ;"  and 
still  plainer  on  page  226,  "The  condemnation  which  comes  upon 
us  through  Adam,  has  respect  only  to  one  offence  ;  while  the 
justification  effected  by  Christ,  has  respect  to  many  offences." 
To  say  that  our  condemnation  "has  respect  to  one  offence,"  is  to 
say,  we  are  condemned  for  one  offence.  And  again,  on  tlie  same 
page,  he  tells  us,  that  "verse  16  repeats  the  same  sentiment, 
{%.  €.,  with  15th  verse,)  but  in  a  more  specific  manner."  What 
is,  according  to  Professor  Stuart,  the  sentiment  of  verse  15  ? 
Not  that  Adam's  offence  was  the  occasion,  but  the  ground,  of 
our  being  subject  to  ■ddvarog,  i.  e.,  condemned.'  Of  course,  then, 
verse  16,  which  repeats  this  sentiment  in  a  more  specific  man- 
ner, must  mean  that  the  one  offence  is  the  ground  of  our  con- 
demnation. 

We  may  remark  here,  as  the  words  under  consideration  will, 
in  their  connection,  admit  of  no  other  interpretation  than  that 
just  given,  so  the  idea  which  they  express  being  the  same  as 
that  contained  in  verses  12,  15,  17,  18,  19,  may  fairly  be  applied 
to  explain  the  equivalent  clauses  in  those  verses,  which,  in  them- 
selves, may  be  less  definite  and  perspicuous.  To  explain,  there- 
fore, verse  12  as  teaching  either  that  the  corrupt  nature  derived 
from  Adam,  or  the  actual  sins  which  he  was  the  occasion  of 
our  committing,  are  the  ground  of  death,  or  condemnation,  com- 
ing upon  us,  is  inconsistent  with  the  plain  and  admitted  meaning 
of  this  clause,  which  asserts  that  the  ground  of  condemnation 

'  We  shall  show  directly,  that  Professor  Stuai't  admits,  that  being  subject  to  death 
for  Adam's  sin,  and  beijig  condemned  on  account  of  it,  are  equivalent  expressions. 


74  STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS. 

here  contemplated  is  neither  our  corrupt  nature,  nor  our  actual 
sins,  but  the  one  offence  of  Adam.  Consequently,  the  interpre- 
tation given  above  of  verses  12,  13,  and  14,  is  the  only  one  which 
can  be  carried  consistently  through. 

We  must  here  pause  to  notice  as  remarkable  an  example  of 
inconsistency,  on  the  part  of  Professor  Stuart,  as  we  remember 
ever  to  have  met  with.  On  page  230,  he  tells  us,  /cpi/za  elg  Kard- 
Kpifia  means  ""'a  condemning  sentence,"  and  on  the  next  jiage, 
after  remarking  that  Kpl^ia  means  either  a  sentence  of  condemna- 
tion or  punishment,  he  asks,  how  the  phrase  is  to  be  understood 
here  ?  "  The  very  expression,"  he  says,  "  shows  that  Kpijia  is  to 
be  taken  as  explained  above,  viz.,  as  meaning  the  evils  injiicted 
by  Adam's  sin  ;"  and  then  adds,  whether  this  evil  be  loss  of 
original  righteousness,  or  a  disposition  in  itself  sinful,  "  it  is  true 
in  either  case,  that  the  icpiim,  the  evil  infiicted  or  suffered,  is  of 
such  a  nature  as  to  lead  the  way  to  naraKgijia,  condemnation,  i.  e., 
^avarog,  in  its  highest  and  most  dreadful  sense."  Tliat  is,  on  one 
page,  we  are  told  the  words  mean  "  a  sentence  of  ccndcmnation,"' 
and  on  the  next,  "  certain  evils  which  lead  to  condemnation" — 
two  inconsistent  and  opposite  interpretations.  Need  this  be 
proved  ?  Need  it  be  argued,  that  a  sentence  of  condemnation 
is  one  thing,  punishment  another  ?  If  KQiiia  here  means  the 
former  it  cannot  heix  mean  the  latter.  It  is  surely  one  thing  to 
say,  that  a  sentence  of  condemnation  has  come  upon  us  for 
Adam's  sin,  and  a  very  different  one  to  say,  that  certain  evils 
have  come  upon  us  which  lead  the  way  to  our  incurring  condem- 
nation ourselves.  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  this  is  one  of  the 
most  important  clauses  in  this  whole  passage  ;  one  on  which, 
perhaps  more  than  any  other,  the  interpretation  of  the  whole 
depends  ;  and  we  think  our  readers  will  share  our  surprise,  that 
Professor  Stuart's  views  should  be  so  little  settled  as  to  allow 
him  to  give  such  opposite  views  of  its  meaning  in  two  consecu- 
tive pages.  This  surprise  will  be  increased,  when  they  observe 
on  page  235,  when  speaking  of  the  18th  verse,  he  reverts  to  his 
first  interpretation,  and  makes  it  mean,  a  sentence  of  condemna- 
tion. This  too  is  the  interpretation  of  Tholiick,  Flatt,  Koppe 
(verse  15),  Turrettin,  and,  in  fact,  of  almost  all  commentators. 

The  verse  17  either  contains  an  amplification  merely  of  verse 
15,  or  peculiar  eni2)hasis  is  to  be  laid  on  the  word  Xaj-ifidvovTeg,  or, 
as  Flatt  and  Professor  Stuart  suppose,  it  expresses  the  idea, 


STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS.  75 

that  Christ  not  only  secures  the  pardon  of  our  many  offences,  as 
stated  in  verse  16,  but  confers  upon  us  positive  happiness  and 
'glory.  "The  sentiment,"  Professor  Stuart  says,  "runs  thus: 
'  for  if  all  are  in  a  state  of  condemnation  by  reason  of  the  offence 
of  one,  much  more  shall  those  towards  whom  abundance  of  mercy 
and  pardoning  grace  are  shown,  be  redeemed  from  a  state  of 
condemnation,  and  advanced  to  a  state  of  happiness/  "  Here, 
we  wish  the  reader  to  remark,  1st.  That  Professor  Stuart  says, 
the  phrase  "  death  reigns,"  designates  a  state  of  condemnation. 
This  is  expressly  asserted  on  page  233.  2d.  That  all  are  brought 
into  this  state  of  condemnation,  by  the  offence  of  one.  The  first 
clause  of  the  verse  he  thus  translates,  ''^For  if  by  the  offence  of 
one,  death  reigned  hy  means  of  one."  By  this  he  means,  not  that 
the  offence  of  Adam  was  the  occasion  merely  of  death  reigning 
over  all,  or  of  all  being  brought  into  a  state  of  condemnation,  but 
that  this  offence  was  the  ground  of  their  condemnation,  antece- 
dent to  any  act  of  their  own.  This  must  be  his  meaning  ;  for  he 
thus  explains  the  words  "  by  the  offence  of  one  many  die,"  in 
verse  15  ;  and  he  can  hardly  maintain  that  the  words,  "  by  the 
offence  of  one  death  reigns,"  express  a  different  idea.  Besides, 
he  tells  us  expressly,  that  this  verse  (verse  17)  repeats  the  senti- 
ment of  verse  15 — see  page  226.  We  wish  the  reader,  3d.  To 
remark,  that  if  verse  17  expresses  the  sentiment,  'all  men  are  in 
a  state  of  condemnation  on  account  of  the  offence  of  Adam,'  and 
if  it  repeats  the  sentiment  of  verses  15,  16,  and  if  verse  18  (con- 
taining the  identical  words  and  expressing  the  same  idea  with 
verse  16)  repeats  the  sentiment  of  verse  12,  then  does  verse  12, 
by  Professor  Stuart's  own  showing,  express  the  idea  that  all  men 
are  condemned  on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  antecedent  to  any  act 
of  their  own.  Thus  we  have  our  interpretation  of  that  verse  con- 
firmed, and  Mr.  Stuart's  overthrown  by  the  Professor  himself 
4th.  The  reader  should  notice,  that  Mr,  Stuart  was  led  to  the 
correct,  though,  for  him,  inconsistent,  interpretation  of  verse  17, 
by  objecting  to  Tholuck's  rendering  SiKuioavvrj  holiness,  instead  of 
Justif  cation.  He  very  properly  remarks,  that  such  an  interpreta- 
tion is  inconsistent  with  "the  antithesis  to  the  state  of  condem- 
nation indicated  by  6  -Bdvarog  t:{iaalXEvae  in  the  preceding  clause." 
He  insists,  very  reasonably,  that  the  two  parts  of  the  sentence 
should  be  made  to  correspond.  If  the  former  speaks  of  condem- 
nation, the  latter  must  of  justification.     This  obvious  principle 


76  STUARTONTHEKOMANS. 

of  interpretation,  the  reader  will  find  Professor  Stuart  forgets, 
when  he  comes  to  the  19th  verse.  There  is  another  important 
admission  which  must  be  noticed,  and  that  is,  that  the  all  who 
suffer  for  Adam's  sin,  are  not  the  all  who  are  benefited  by 
Christ  ;  the  two  classes  are  not  necessarily  coextensive.  "  If  all 
are  in  a  state  of  condemnation  by  reason  of  the  offence  of  one, 
much  more  shall  tlwse  towards  luliom  abundance  of  mercy  and 
pardoning  grace  are  shotvn,  be  redeemed  from  a  state  of  con- 
demnation, and  advanced  to  a  state  of  happiness."  All  are  not 
thus  redeemed  from  condemnation,  and  advanced  to  a  state  of 
happiness.     This,  too.  Professor  Stuart,  it  will  be  seen,  forgets. 

VERSES    XVIIL,    XIX. 

We  come  now  to  those  verses  in  which,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  the  comparison,  commenced  in  verse  12,  is  resumed,  and 
carried  through.  Professor  Stuart  thus  translates  the  18th  verse  : 
''  Wherefore  as  by  the  offence  of  one  (sentence)  came  upon  all 
men  unto  condemnation  ;  so  also  by  the  righteousness  of  one  (the 
free  gift)  came  upon  all  unto  justification  of  fife."  Does  it  re- 
quire any  argument  to  prove,  that  this  verse  means,  '  As  men 
are  condemned  on  account  of  the  offence  of  one  man,  so  they  are 
justified  on  account  of  the  righteousness  of  one  man  ?'  We 
hardly  know  how  the  apostle  could  have  spoken  in  plainer  terms. 
To  make  him  here  say,  that  the  offence  of  Adam  was  the  mere 
occasion  of  our  condemnation,  is  to  do  the  most  obvious  violence 
to  the  passage  ;  because,  1.  We  have  shown  that  this  cannot  be 
the  meaning  of  these  identical  words,  as  they  occur  in  the  16th 
verse.  2.  Because,  such  an  interpretation  is  inconsistent  with 
the  whole  scope  and  design  of  the  passage.  3.  Especially,  be- 
cause it  violates  the  pointed  antithesis  in  this  verse,  or  forces  us 
to  suppose  that  Paul  teaches  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
was  the  mere  occasion  of  men  becoming  holy.  Surely,  if  dtd  ex- 
presses the  occasional  cause  in  the  one  member  of  the  sentence, 
it  must  in  the  other.  But,  if  we  are  not  prepared  to  admit  that 
Christ's  righteousness  is  the  mere  occasion  (and  not  the  ground) 
of  our  justification,  then  we  cannot  maintain  that  Adam's  sin  is 
the  mere  occasion  of  our  condemnation.  4,  We  may  remark,  ad 
hominem,  that  Professor  Stuart  admits  that  the  corresponding 
clauses  in  the  preceding  verses,  express  the  idea,  that  the  ofience 
of  Adam  was  the  ground  of  the  condemnation  of  men.     On  ac- 


STUARTONTHEROMANS.  77 

count  of  that  offence,  antecedent  to  any  act  of  their  own,  death 
reigns  over  them,  or  they  are  (as  he  expresses  it),  "  in  a  state  of 
condemnation."  Of  course,  then,  he  cannot  be  permitted  to  turn 
round,  and  say  that  the  same  words,  in  the  same  connection, 
teach  here  a  different  doctrine.  There  is  no  escaping  the  plain 
meaning  of  this  verse.  The  veiy  form  of  introduction  proves 
that  Paul  is  repeating  an  idea  previously  presented  and  estab- 
lished, '■^Wherefore  as;"  and  this  idea,  as  we  have  abundantly 
shown,  Professor  Stuart  himself  admits,  is,  that  all  men  die,  all 
are  condemned,  on  account  of  Adam's  sin. 

The  expression  ^^justification  of  life"  Professor  Stuart  justly 
remarks,  means,  that  "justification  which  is  connected  with  eter- 
nal life." 

It  need  hardly  be  stated,  that  to  say,  "justification  comes  on 
all  men,"  is  equivalent  to  saying,  "  all  men  are  justified,"  or, 
"all  are  constituted  righteous."  The  apostle,  therefore,  does 
here  assert,  that,  "  as  all  are  condemned  for  Adam's  sin,  so  all 
are  justified  on  account  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ."  To  say, 
as  Professor  Stuart  says,  that  the  latter  clause  of  this  verse 
means  that  salvation  is  merely  provided  and  offered  to  all,  is  to 
give  all  exegesis  to  the  winds.  When  it  is  affirmed,  that  a  man 
is  condemned,  or  that  he  is  pardoned,  how  can  this  mean  that  he 
is  not  condemned,  or  not  pardoned,  but  merely  that  an  oppor- 
tunity is  offered,  or  an  occasion  presented,  for  the  one  or  the 
other  ?  At  this  rate,  we  may  say  that  all  men  are  condemned 
for  murder,  as  all  have  opportunities  to  secure  this  result.  What- 
ever, therefore,  "justification  of  life"  may  mean,  Paul  does  assert 
that  all  men  (of  whom  he  is  speaking)  do  receive  it.  It  is  at 
utter  variance  with  all  Bible,  and  all  common  usage,  to  make 
the  words  mean  any  thing  else.  Who  ever  announces  to  a  con- 
gregation of  sinners,  that  they  are  all  justified — they  are  all  con- 
stituted righteous — they  all  have  the  justification  of  eternal  life  ? 
No  one.     Neither  does  Paul. 

But  does  not  this  necessarily  make  the  apostle  teach  universal 
salvation  ?  Must  not  the  all  7nen  of  the  second  clause,  be  coex- 
tensive with  the  all  men  of  the  first  ?  We  confidently  answer, 
No.  And  it  is  a  matter  of  surprise  how  Professor  Stuart  can 
urge  such  an  objection,  when  he  knows  it  admits  so  easily  of  a 
complete  refutation  ;  and  that,  too,  by  his  own  admission.  The 
plain  meaning  of  the  passage  is,  '  as  all  connected  with  Adam 


78  STUARTONTHEROMANS. 

are  condemned,  so  ail  connected  with  Christ  are  justified.'     The 
first  all  includes  all  the  natural  descendants  of  Adam  (Christ, 
who  was  a  man,  is  not  included)  ;  the  second  all  includes  the 
people  of  Christ,  all  connected  with  him  by  faith.    Is  this  incon- 
sistent with  usage  ?     Look  at  1  Corinthians,  xv.  21 — '  As  in 
Adam  all  die,  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  partakers  of  a  glori- 
ous resurrection,'  as  the  last  clause  there  confessedly  means.     Is 
the  second  all,  in  this  case,  coextensive  Avith  the  first  ?    Certainly 
not.     '  All  connected  with  Adam  die  ;  all  connected  with  Christ 
live.'     How  can  any  man,  who  admits,  as  Professor  Stuart  does 
(see  page  524),  that  Paul,  in  this  passage,  is  speaking  only  of 
Christians,  and,  consequently,  that  the  all  of  the  second  clause 
must  be  confined  to  them,  be  serious,  in  objecting  to  the  same  in- 
terpretation in  the  perfectly  analogous  passage  before  us  ?     But, 
secondly,  Paul  himself  clearly  intimates,  or  rather  states  in  so 
many  words,  that  the  all  men  who  are  justified  by  Christ,  are  the 
all  "  who  receive  the  abundance  of  mercy  and  pardoning  grace,'' 
verse  17.    This,  as  we  understand  him,  Professor  Stuart  admits  ; 
for  he  surely  does  not  mean  to  say,  that  all  men  absolutely  do  re- 
ceive this  gift,  and  do  reign  in  life  with  Jesus  Christ.    Finally,  it 
is  impossible  to  carry  the  opposite  interpretation  through.    There 
are  two  classes  opposed,  or  contrasted,  in  verses  15,  16,  17,  18, 
and  19,  and  these  are  the  same  throughout.     Now,  is  it  true, 
that  the  grace  of  God  abounds  to  all  men  absolutely,  in  the 
meaning  of  verse  15  ;  that  all  are  gratuitously  pardoned  for  their 
many  offences,  as  asserted  in  verse  16  ;  that  all  reign  in  life  with 
Christ,  as  is  said  in  verse  17  ;  that  all  are  justified  with  the 
justification  of  eternal  life,  as  stated  in  verse  18  ;  that  all  are 
^'  constituted  righteous,"  that  is,  as  Professor  Stuart  explains  it, 
"justified,   pardoned,   accepted,  and   treated   as   righteous,"  as 
taught  in  verse  19  ?    This  is  plainly  out  of  the  question.   Neither 
Professor   Stuart,  nor   any  other   man,  except   a   Universalist, 
can  say  all  this.     We  are  persuaded,  there  must  be  an  end  to  all 
interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  to  all  understanding  of  language, 
if  we  are  to  be  made  to  believe,  that,  being  forgiven  for  many 
ofiences,  being  justified,  being  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous, 
mean  merely,  that  the  offer  and  opportunity  of  salvation  is  af- 
forded to  all  men.     We  may  as  well  shut  up  the  Bible  at  once, 
and  go  bow  at  the  footstool  of  the  Pope,  if  this  be  exegesis.     Is 
it  not  clear,  then,  the  olijoction  to  the  common  view  of  these  pas- 


STUARTON     THE     ROMANS.  79 

sages  cannot  be  sustained,  unless  violence  be  done  to  every  just 
principle  of  language. 

We  have  arrived  at  last  at  verse  19 — "  For  as  by  the  disobe- 
dience of  one  man,  the  many  were  constituted  sinners,  so  by  the 
obedience  of  one,  shall  many  be  constituted  righteous."  The 
first  question  of  interest  on  this  verse  is,  what  is  its  relation  to 
the  18th  ?  Is  it  a  mere  amplification  ?  Or,  does  it  assign  a 
reason  for  the  preceding  declaration  ?  Or,  may  we  adopt  Storr's 
view  of  the  18th,  and  make  the  apostle  there  say,  "  as  in  the 
condemnation  of  one  man,  all  were  condemned,  so  in  the  justifi- 
cation of  one  all  are  justified  ;"'  and  then  understand  the  19th 
verse,  as  assigning  the  ground  of  the  truth  thus  presented.  As 
it  does  not  essentially  alter  the  meaning  of  the  verse  before  us, 
which  of  these  views  is  adopted,  we  need  not  stop  to  discuss  this 
point. 

A  more  important  question  is.  What  does  Paul  mean  by  say- 
ing, by  the  disobedience  of  one  man  the  many  ivere  constituted 
sinners  ?  Here  we  meet  the  three  interpretations,  before  noticed 
when  speaking  of  the  12th  verse.  1.  Adam's  sin  was  the  occa- 
sion of  our  becoming  actually  sinners.  2.  By  the  transmission  of 
his  depraved  nature,  we  are  rendered  corrupt.  3.  On  account 
of  his  sin,  we  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners.  Professor 
Stuart  adopts  the  first,  many  Calvinistic  and  modern  commenta- 
tors the  second ;  the  majority,  we  presume,  of  all  classes,  the 
third.  That  this  last  is  the  correct,  and,  indeed,  the  only  possi- 
ble one  in  this  connection,  we  think  very  plain,  for  the  following 
reasons  :  1.  Usage,  as  is  on  all  hands  acknowledged,  admits  of 
this  interpretation  as  naturally,  to  say  the  least,  as  either  of  the 
others.  2.  With  no  show  of  reason  can  it  be  denied,  that  "  to 
constitute  sinners,"  and  "  to  constitute  righteous,"  are  here  cor- 
relative expressions.  If  the  former  means,  "  to  make  corrupt,  or 
actual  sinners,"  then  the  latter  must  mean,  "  to  render  holy." 
But  this  the  phrase  cannot  here  mean — a.  Because,  "to  consti- 
tute righteous,"  is  substituted  for  the  phrase,  "free  gift  of  justi- 
fication" of  the  preceding  verse ;  the  6iicaLaavv7]  of  the  17th  and  the 
ducaiMd^vTEg  of  the  first  part  of  the  chapter  ;  b.  Because  such  an 
interpretation  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  scriptural  use  of 
the  terms,  justify  and  justification,  and  would  overturn  the  very 

•  This  is,  make  -^apunTufia  and  Sucaiufia  mean,  not  offence  and  righteousness,  but 
condemnr.tion  aM6.  jvslifkation. 


<S0  STUAKT    ON    THE    ROMANS. 

foundation  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  as  taught  by 
Paul  and  the  other  sacred  writers.  We  are  never  said  to  be  con- 
stituted personally  holy,  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  c.  And 
finally,  ad  liominem,  Professor  Stuart  tells  us,  "constituted 
righteous"  means,  "justified,  pardoned,  accepted,  and  treated  as 
righteous."  With  what  semblance  of  consistency,  then,  can  he 
deny  that  "  constituted  sinners"  means  "  regarded  and  treated  as 
sinners  ?"  Has  he  forgotten  what  he  said  on  the  17th  verse,  that 
if  the  one  ])^ri  of  the  verse  speaks  of  condemnation,  the  other 
must  speak  of  justification,  and  vice  versa  ?  But,  3.  Not  only 
does  the  antithesis  here  demand  this  interpretation,  but  it  is  no 
less  imperatively  demanded,  in  order  to  maintain  any  consistency 
in  the  exposition  of  the  whole  passage.  We  have  seen  that 
Professor  Stuart  admits  that  verses  15;  16,  17,  and  18,  all  speak 
of  our  being  condemned,  or  dying,  on  account  of  Adam's  sin, 
and  justified  on  account  of  Christ's  righteousness.  Shall,  then, 
the  19th  verse  alone  assert  a  different,  and  in  this  connection,  an 
incoherent  idea  ?  And  4.  The  design  and  scope  of  the  whole  com- 
parison, requires  this  interpretation.  As  we  have  so  frequently 
remarked,  the  apostle  is  not  contrasting  sin  and  holiness,  but 
condemnation  and  justification.  He  is  not  illustrating  the  way, 
in  which  men  become  holy,  by  the  way  in  which  they  become 
corrupt ;  but  the  fact  that  we  are  regarded  and  treated  as  right- 
eous on  account  of  one  man,  by  the  fact  that  we  have  been  re- 
garded and  treated  as  sinners,  on  account  of  another.  It  is, 
therefore,  not  only  in  violation  of  the  plainest  principles  of  inter- 
pretation, but  at  the  expense  of  all  consistency,  that  Professor 
Stuart  makes  the  clause  under  consideration  mean,  the  '  disobe- 
dience of  Adam  was  the  occasion  of  men  becoming  personaEy 
and  actually  sinners.' 

In  reviewing  the  ground  we  have  now  gone  over,  how  simple, 
natural,  and  conclusive,  is  the  argument  of  the  apostle,  accord- 
ing to  the  common  interpretation  ;  and  how  forced,  incoherent, 
and  contradictory  the  view  Professor  Stuart  would  have  us  to 
adopt.  Paul  tells  us  (verse  12),  that  by  one  man  sin  entered 
into  the  world,  or  men  were  brought  to  stand  in  the  relation  of 
sinners  before  God  ;  death,  consequently,  passed  on  all,  because 
for  the  one  ofience  of  that  one  man,  all  were  regarded  and  treated 
as  sinners.  That  this  is  really  the  case,  is  plain  ;  because,  the 
execution  of  the  penalty  of  a  law  cannot  be  more  extensive  than 


STUART     ON    THE    ROMANS.  81 

its  violation  ;  and,  consequently,  if  all  men  are  subject  to  penal 
evils,  all  are  regarded  as  sinners  in  the  sight  of  God.  This 
universality  in  the  infliction  of  penal  evil,  cannot  be  accounted 
for  on  the  ground  of  the  violation  of  the  law  of  Moses,  since  many 
died  before  that  law  was  given  ;  nor  yet,  on  account  of  the  more 
general  law  written  on  the  heart,  since  even  they  die  who  have 
never  personally  sinned  at  all.  We  must  conclude,  therefore, 
that  men  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners  on  account  of  the 
sin  of  Adam. 

He  is,  therefore,  a  type  of  Christ ;  and  yet,  the  cases  are  not 
entirely  analogous  ;  for  if  it  be  consistent,  that  we  should  suffer 
for  what  Adam  did,  how  much  more  may  we  expect  to  be  made 
happy  for  what  Christ  has  done.  Besides,  we  are  condemned  for 
one  sin  only  on  Adam's  account ;  whereas,  Christ  saves  us  not 
only  from  the  evils  consequent  on  that  transgression,  but  from 
the  punishment  of  our  own  innumerable  offences.  Now,  if  for 
the  offence  of  one,  death  thus  triumphs  over  all,  how  much  more 
shall  those  who  receive  the  grace  of  the  Grospel  (not  only  be 
saved  from  evil),  but  reign  in  life,  through  Christ  Jesus. 

Wherefore,  as  on  account  of  the  offence  of  one,  the  condemna- 
tory sentence  has  passed  on  all  the  descendants  of  Adam,  so 
on  account  of  the  righteousness  of  one,  gratuitous  justification 
comes  on  all  who  receive  the  grace  of  Christ  ;  for  as  on  account 
of  the  disobedience  of  the  one,  we  are  treated  as  sinners,  so  on 
account  of  the  obedience  of  the  other,  we  are  treated  as  right- 
eous. 

Let  it  be  remarked,  that  there  is  not  a  sentiment  (to  the  best 
of  our  knowledge)  contained  in  this  general  analysis,  whicb  has 
not  the  sanction,  in  one  place  or  other,  of  Professor  Stuart's  au- 
thority. 

We  will  now  very  briefly  attend  to  his  objections  to  the  doc- 
trine of  imputation  as  presented  in  his  commentary  on  the  19th 
verse.  After  stating,  page  237,  that  the  doctrine  does  not  lie  in 
the  word  iiarearddTf]aav  ;  nor  in  that  word  in  connection  with  6ia. 
Tfjg  napaiioiig  rov  hog ;  and  arguing  well  to  show  that  6ia  with  a 
genitive  may  express  an  occasional,  or  instrumental  cause,  as 
well  as  an  efficient  one,  he  says,  '•'  we  must  come  then  to  the  ex- 
amination of  the  whole  phrase,  in  order  to  get  the  satisfaction 
which  is  required.  And  if  now,  '  the  many  became  sinners  hy 
the  disobedience  of  Adam,'  must  it  not  follow  that  his  sin  is  im- 

G 


82  STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS. 

pUted  to  tliem,  i.  e.,  reckoned  as  theirs  ?  In  reply,  I  would  ask, 
Why  should  this  be  a  necessary  consequence  of  admitting  the 
apostle's  assertion  ?  If  a  writer  should  say,  that  millions  in 
Europe  have  become  or  been  constituted  profligates,  by  Voltaire, 
would  the  necessary  meaning  be,  that  the  sin  of  Voltaire  was  put 
to  their  account  ?  Certainly  not  ;  it  would  be  enough  to  say, 
in  order  fully  to  explain  and  justify  such  an  expression,  that 
Voltaire  had  been  an  instrument,  a  means,  or  occasion  of  their 
profligacy."  It  is  perfectly  apparent  that  Professor  Stuart  had 
not,  in  writing  this  paragraph,  the  slightest  conception  of  the 
argument  for  imputation  founded  on  this  passage.  He  admits, 
what  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  words  will  bear  either  of  these 
two  senses,  '  we  are  treated  as  sinners,'  or,  '  become  sinners'  per- 
sonally. The  question  is,  what  is  their  meaning  here  ?  Now  if 
Paul  says,  that  all  men  die  for  Adam's  offence  antecedent  to  any 
act  of  their  own  ;  if  on  account  of  that  offence  they  are  con- 
demned (as  Professor  Stuart  admits  he  does  say)  ;  and  then 
that  "we  are  constituted  sinners"  by  his  disobedience,  as  'we  are 
constituted  righteous  (that  is,  confessedly,  treated  as  such)  for 
the  obedience  of  Christ  ;'  we  think  it  very  hard  to  disprove  that 
he  means  to  say,  that  we  are  treated  as  sinners  on  his  account, 
or,  in  other  words,  have  his  sin  put  to  our  account. 

The  next  paragraph  is  still  more  strange.  "  I  will  select," 
says  Professor  Stuart,  "  a  case  more  directly  in  point  still  ;  one 
taken  from  the  very  epistle  under  consideration,  and  which, 
therefore,  must  serve  to  cast  direct  light  on  the  usus  loqiiendi  of 
Paul,  In  Komans,  vii.  6,  this  apostle  says,  '  Our  sinful  passions 
are  by  the  law.'  Again,  in  verse  7,  '  I  had  not  known  sin,  ex- 
cept BY  the  law.'  Again,  in  verse  8,  '■  Sin  taking  occasion,  by  the 
commandment,  Avrought  in  me  all  manner  of  concupiscence  ;' 
and  so  again  in  verse  11."  He  then  asks  whether  it  can  be  in- 
ferred from  these  passages,  that  the  law  is  "the  efficient  cause 
of  aU  sin,"  or,  that  "there  is  evil  in  the  law,  which  evil  is  put  to 
our  account,  i.  e.,  merely  imputed  to  us  ?"  We  confess  we  can 
scarcely  see  how  such  reasoning,  or  rather  such  writing,  can  be 
answered.  If  it  needs  refutation,  we  almost  despair  of  giving  it. 
We  can  only  say,  we  know  no  two  propositions  more  diverse, 
than,  '  Adam  is  the  efficient  cause  of  our  sins,'  and  '  Adam's  sin 
is  put  to  our  account.'   How  any  mind  can  regard  them  as  equiv- 


STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS.  83 

alent,  is  to  us  a  marvel.  We  as  much  believe  that  "  the  law  is 
the  efficient  cause  of  all  sin,"  as  that  Adam  is.  And  when  asked 
whether  the  passages  quoted  prove  'there  is  evil  in  the  law, 
which  evil  is  put  to  our  account  ?'  we  answer,  No,  without  the 
least  idea  what  hearing  it  has  on  the  point  in  hand.  Did  any 
one  imagine,  that  the  argument  for  imputation  was  founded 
simply  on  the  use  of  the  word  6id,  such  reasoning  might  be  suffi- 
cient ;  but  this  is  not  the  case.  The  real  argument  we  have  re- 
peatedly stated  above.  Is  it  not  lamentable  to  see  important 
doctrines  rejected,  and  long  received  interpretation  spurned  by 
such  a  man,  for  such  reasons  ?  Yet  these  are  his  exegetical 
reasons  as  here  presented.  The  theological  ones  are  such  as 
follow : 

"  We  must  then  examine,"  says  Professor  Stuart,  "  the  nature 
of  the  case.  It  is  (according  to  the  common  theory  of  imputa- 
tion), that  the  sin  of  one  man  is  charged  upon  all  his  posterity 
who  are  condemned  to  everlasting  death  because  of  it,  antece- 
dent to  it,  and  independently  of  any  voluntary  emotion  or  action 
on  their  part."  We  object  to  the  accuracy  of  this  definition. 
The  words  "  to  everlasting  death"  should  be  left  out,  because  it 
matters  not  what  men  are  condemned  to,  as  far  as  the  doctrine 
is  concerned.  The  doctrine  is  this,  '  The  sin  of  Adam  is  so  put 
to  the  account  of  his  posterity,  that  they  are  condemned  on  ac- 
count of  it,  antecedent  to  any  act  of  their  own.'  This  is  our 
doctrine  ;  and  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  totidem  verbis,  what  Profes- 
sor Stuart  says  Paul  teaches  in  verses  15, 16,  17,  of  this  chapter, 
although  it  is  also  the  doctrine  which  he  now  argues  against  with 
so  much  vehemence.  (The  reader  will  see  that  Mr.  Stuart's  ob- 
jections are  not  directed  against  the  clause  "  everlasting  death," 
and  consequently  its  omission  does  not  alter  the  case.)  His  first 
objection  is,  that  the  doctrine  "  appears  to  contradict  the  essen- 
tial principles  of  our  moral  consciousness."  We  never  can  force 
ourselves  into  a  consciousness  that  any  act  is  really  our  own, 
except  one  in  which  we  have  had  a  personal  and  voluntary  con- 
cern." "  A  transfer  of  moral  turpitude  is  just  as  impossible  as 
a  transfer  of  souls."  "  To  repent,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word, 
of  another's  personal  act,  is  plainly  an  utter  impossibility."  We, 
in  our  simplicity,  had  hoped  never  to  hear  again,  at  least  from 
Professor  Stuart,  these  objections  against  this  doctrine.     They 


84  STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS. 

have  so  abundantly  and  frequently  been  proved  to  be  founded  in 
an  entire  misconception  of  its  nature,  that  it  is  useless,  because 
hopeless,  to  go  over  the  proof  again,  for  those  who  still  refuse  to 
see  it.  We  can  therefore,  only  say  we  no  more  believe  in  "  the 
transfer  of  moral  turpitude,"  than  ''  in  the  transfer  of  souls." 
Nor  do  we  believe  it  possible  "  to  repent,  in  the  strict  sense  of 
the  word,  of  another's  personal  act."  Nor  yet  again,  do  we  be- 
lieve that  two  and  two  make  twenty,  and  still  we,  not  a  whit  the 
less,  believe  the  doctrine  of  imputation.  If  it  be  any  amusement 
to  Professor  Stuart  to  write  thus,  we  cannot  object  ;  but  to  call 
it  arguing  against  imputation,  is  a  strange  solecism. 

But  secondly  :  "  Such  an  imputation  as  that  in  question  (viz., 
such  as  includes  the  idea  of  "a  transfer  of  moral  turpitude,"  and 
that  "  an  act  is  really  our  own  in  which  we  have  had  no  personal 
concern"),  would  be  in  direct  opposition  to  the  first  principles  of 
moral  justice  as  conceived  of  by  us,  or  as  represented  in  the 
Bible.  That  '  the  son  shall  not  die  for  the  iniquity  of  the  father,' 
is  as  true  as  that  '  the  father  shall  not  die  for  the  iniquity  of  the 
son,'  as  God  has  most  fully  declared  in  Ezekiel  xviii  "  It  would 
reaUy  seem  that  Professor  Stuart  is  some  how  inftituated  on  this 
subject  ;  that  he  is  unable  to  keep  the  same  idea  in  his  mind 
long  enough  to  write  two  consecutive  paragraphs  How  is  it,  he 
does  not  see  that  the  idea  of  imputation,  on  which  this  sentence 
is  founded,  is  as  different  as  day  from  night,  from  that  involved 
in  the  preceding  ?  In  the  one,  '  the  transfer  of  moral  turpitude,' 
and  identity  of  act,  are  included  ;  in  the  other  both  of  these 
ideas  are  necessarily  excluded,  and  the  whole  doctrine  is,- that 
'  one  should  die  for  the  iniquity  of  another.'  It  is  not  within  the 
limits  of  possibility  that  he  should  understand  the  prophet  as 
saying  '  the  moral  turpitude  of  the  father  shall  not  be  transferred 
to  the  son,  nor  his  act  be  really  the  act  of  his  offspring.'  This 
cannot  be  ;  of  course  Professor  Stuart's  idea  of  imputation,  when 
writing  this  paragraph,  was  the  opposite  of  the  one  he  had  when 
writing  the  preceding. 

But  again  ;  '  that  a  son  should  die  for  the  iniquity  of  his  lather,' 
"  is,"  he  says,  "  in  direct  opposition  to  the  first  principles  of 
moral  justice."  He  wonders  how  President  Edwards  could  im- 
agine that  the  declaration  of  the  prophet  was  meant  to  be  con- 
fined to  the  several  individuals  of  the  race  of  Adam,  and  not  to 


STUART    ON    THE    ROMANS.  86' 

be  applied  to  the  peculiar  covenant  relation  between  him  and  his 
posterity.  And  yet,  as  we  have  seen,  Professor  Stuart  himself 
teaches,  yea,  on  the  very  next  page  re-affirms,  that  all  men  do 
die  on  account  of  the  iniquity  of  Adam.  Such  inconsistency  is 
wonderful. 

He  seems  to  feel,  notwithstanding  the  warmth  with  which  he 
argues,  that  all  is  not  quite  right,  for  he  introduces  an  objector 
as  suggesting  to  him,  "  But  still  you  admit  that  the  whole 
human  race  became  degenerate  and  degraded,  in  consequence 
of  the  act  of  Adam."  To  which  he  rephes,  "  I  do  so  :  I  fully  be- 
lieve it.  I  reject  all  attempts  to  explain  away  this.  I  go  further  : 
I  admit  not  only  the  loss  of  an  original  state  of  righteousness,  in 
consequence  of  Adam's  first  sin,  but  that  temporal  evUs  and 
death  have  come  on  all  by  means  of  it,"  &c.  Yes,  respected  sir, 
you  admit  what  you  deny,  and  deny  what  you  admit,  in  such 
rapid  succession,  your  readers  are  bewildered.  That,  '  one  should 
die  for  the  iniquity  of  another  is,  on  one  page  opposed  to  all 
justice,  and  on  the  next,  we  not  only  '  all  die  for  Adam's  sin,' 
but  we  are  born  destitute  of  holiness,  with  "a  nature  degraded 
and  degenerated,  in  itself  considered  ;"  we  are  involved  in  a  cer- 
tainty of  sinning,  and  "  are  in  imminent  hazard  of  everlasting 
death."  Of  all  this,  you  teach  that  Adam's  sin  is  not  the  occa- 
sion merely,  but  that  these  evils  come  upon  us  antecedent  to 
any  voluntary  emotion  of  our  own.  Nay,  more,  they  are  all  in 
their  nature  penal,  for  in  the  next  page  you  tell  us,  they  are 
^^ part  of  the  penalty  of  the  laio ;"  a  small  part,  as  you  are  pleased 
to  think,  though  a  much  larger  part  than  Turretin  and  other 
strenuous  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  beheve  to  be 
directly  "  inflicted  on  our  race"  for  Adam's  offence. 

We  have  now  seen  enough  to  convince  the  reader  of  two 
things  :  First,  that  the  doctrine  of  imputation  is  not  touched 
either  by  Professor  Stuart's  exegesis  or  metaphysics.  It  is  pre- 
cisely where  it  was  before  ;  and  Second,  that  his  whole  expo- 
sition of  this  passage  (Romans,  v.  12-19),  is  so  inconsistent  with 
itself  that  it  cannot  by  possibility  be  correct.  In  reading  this  por- 
tion of  his  commentary  we  have  been  reminded  of  a  remark  of 
Lord  Brskine  in  reference  to  one  of  Burke's  efforts  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  "  It  was  a  sad  failure,  but  Burke  could 
bear  it." 


86  STUARTONTHEROMANS. 

It  was  our  intention  to  extend  these  remarks  to  the  Excursus 
on  Romans  v.,  at  the  end  of  the  volume.  But  we  have  made 
this  article  much  too  long  already.  We  must,  therefore,  defer 
the  execution  of  this  purpose,  to  another  occasion,  should  such 
be  granted  us.  We  think  it  will  then  appear,  that  if  our  New 
Haven  brethren  can  claim  one-half  of  what  Professor  Stuart  says, 
we  can  establish  our  right  to  the  other. 


III. 
THE  LATEST  FORM  OF  INFIDELITY/ 

Our  readers  are  probably  aware  that  the  Unitarian  clergymen 
of  Boston  and  its  vicinity,  priding  themselves  in  the  name  of 
liberal  Christians,  have  never  professed  to  agree  entirely  among 
themselves  in  their  doctrinal  views.  Of  late,  however,  a  portion 
of  their  number  have  advanced  sentiments  which,  in  the  appre- 
hension of  the  rest,  exceed  even  the  limits  of  the  most  liberal 
Christianity.  Hence  this  Discourse  on  the  Latest  Form  of  Infi- 
delity. The  pamphlets  before  us  do  not  enable  us  to  ascertain 
precisely  what  this  new  form  of  infidelity  is,  nor  how  far  it  is 
embraced  by  the  Boston  clergy.  We  know,  indeed,  that  it  has 
its  origin  in  German  pbilosophy,  and  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Emerson 
delivered  an  address  before  the  same  Association  which  listened 
to  Mr.  Norton's  Discourse,  which  was  a  rhapsodical  oration  in 
favor  of  pantheism.  We  know  also  that  that  oration  called 
fortb  an  earnest  remonstrance  and  disclaimer  from  some  of  the 
friends  and  officers  of  the  Cambridge  school  of  theolog)^  The 
public  papers  moreover  informed  us  that  Mr.  Emerson  delivered, 
with  some  applause,  a  series  of  popular  lectures  on  the  new 
philosophy,  to  the  good  people  of  Boston.  We  are,  however, 
ignorant  both  as  to  the  number  of  those  who  embrace  this  new 
philosophy,  and  as  to  the  extent  to  wJiich  they  cany  it.  It  may 
be  inferred  from  Mr.  Norton's  discourse,  that  he  considered  his 

'  A  Discourse  on  the  Latest  Form  of  Infidelity,  delivered  at  the  request  of  the 
Association  of  the  Alumni  of  the  Cambridge  Theological  School,  on  the  19th  of  July, 
1839,  with  ncftes.  By  Andrews  Norton.  Cambridge:  Published  by  John  Owen, 
1839.     Pp.  64. 

A  Letter  to  Mr.  Andrews  Norton,  occasioned  by  his  Discourse  before  the  Associa- 
tion of  the  Alumni  of  the  Cambridge  Theological  School,  on  the  19th  of  July, 
1839.  By  an  Alumnus  of  that  School  Boston:  James  Munroe  &,  Co.,  1839.  Pp.  160 
Princeton  Review. 


88  THE    LATEST     FORM     OF    INFIDELITY. 

opponents  as  denying  either  the  possibility  of  a  miracle,  or  the 
truth  of  the  New  Testament  history  in  reference  to  the  miracles 
of  Christ.  Why  else  should  he  make  the  truth  of  the  evangeli- 
cal history,  and  the  absolute  necessity  of  a  belief  in  miracles,  in 
order  to  faith  in  Christianity,  the  burden  of  his  discourse.?  "The 
latest  form  of  infidelity,"  he  says,  "  is  distinguished  by  assuming 
a  Christian  name,  while  it  strikes  directly  at  the  root  of  faith  in 
Christianity,  and  indirectly  of  all  religion,  by  denpng  the  mira- 
cles attesting  the  divine  mission  of  Christ.'"  On  another  page, 
he  says,  "Christianity  claims  to  reveal  facts,  a  knowledge  of 
which  is  essential  to  the  moral  and  spiritual  regeneration  of  men, 
and  to  offer,  in  attestation  of  those  facts,  the  only  satisfactory 
proof,  the  authority  of  God,  evidenced  by  miraculous  displays  of 
his  power.""  Again  :  "If  it  were  not  for  the  abuse  of  language 
that  has  prevailed,  it  would  be  idle  to  say,  in  denying  the 
miracles  of  Christianity,  the  truth  of  Christianity  is  denied.  It- 
has  been  vaguely  alleged,  that  the  internal  evidences  of  our 
religion  are  sufficient,  and  that  the  miraculous  proof  is  not 
wanted  ;  but  this  can  be  said  by  no  one  who  understands  what 
Christianity  is,  and  what  its  internal  evidences  are."' 

These  quotations  are  sufficient  to  exhibit  the  two  prominent 
doctrines  of  the  discourse,  viz  :  that  miracles  are  the  only  satis- 
factory evidence  of  a  divine  revelation  ;  and  that  the  denial  of 
the  miracles  of  Christianity,  is  a  denial  of  Christianity  itself. 
These  doctrines  are  not  necessarily  connected.  For,  although  it 
is  certain  that  if  the  former  be  true,  the  latter  must  be  true  also; 
it  does  not  follow  that  if  the  former  be  false,  the  latter  must  be 
false.  It  may  be  incorrect,  as  it  doubtless  is,  to  make  miracles 
the  only  satisfactory  proof  of  Christianity,  and  yet  it  may  be 
perfectly  correct  to  say  that  a  denial  of  the  miracles  of  Christ,  is 
a  denial  of  the  gospel,  not  because  the  only  sufficient  proof  of 
the  truth  of  the  gospel  is  denied,  but  because  the  miraculous 
character  of  the  gospel  enters  into  its  very  essence.  The  advent, 
the  person,  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  were  all  miraculous. 
He  cannot  be  believed  upon,  without  belie^dng  a  miracle.  Rev- 
elation is  itself  a  miracle.  All  the  words  of  Christ  suppose  the 
truth  of  his  miracles.  They  can,  therefore,  no  more  be  separated 
from  his  religion  than  the  warp  and  woof  can  be  separated,  and 
yet  the  cloth  remain  entire.  The  apostle  expressly  teaches  us, 
'Discourse,  p.  11.  *  Discourse,  p.  18.  ^  Djgcourse,  p.  21. 


THE    LATEST     FORM    OF    INFIDELITY.  89 

that  if  the  resurrection  of  Christ  be  denied,  the  whole  gospel  is 
denied.  While,  therefore,  we  dissent  from  Mr.  Norton  as  to  his 
first  proposition,  we  fully  agree  with  him  as  to  the  second. 

The  obvious  objection  to  the  doctrine,  that  miracles  are  the 
only  adequate  proof  of  divine  revelation,  is  that  the  great  major- 
ity of  Christians,  who  are  incapable  of  examining  the  evidence  on 
which  the  miracles  rest,  are  thus  left  without  any  sufficient 
ground  of  faith.  This  objection  does  not  escape  Mr.  Norton's 
attention.  His  answer  is  the  same  as  that  given  by  Catholic 
priests  and  high  churchmen,  everywhere,  viz.,  they  must  believe 
on  trust,  or  as  he  j)refers  to  express  it,  on  the  testimony  of  those 
who  are  competent  to  examine  the  evidence  in  question.  As 
they  are  forced  to  beheve  a  thousand  things,  without  personal 
examination,  on  the  testimony  of  others,  he  thinks  it  not  unrea- 
sonable that  they  should  receive  their  religion  on  the  same  terms. 
If  they  believe  that  the  earth  turns  round  because  astronomers 
tell  them  so,  why  may  they  not  believe  that  the  gospel  is  true 
because  learned  men  vouch  for  the  fact  ?  It  is  hardly  necessary 
to  remark,  that  every  Christian  knows  that  such  is  not  the 
foundation  of  his  faith  :  he  has  firmer  ground  on  which  to  rest 
the  destiny  of  his  soul.  He  does  not  believe  Grotius  or  Paley; 
he  believes  God  himself,  speaking  in  his  word.  The  evidence  of 
the  truth  is  in  the  truth  itself.  The  proposition  that  the  whole 
is  greater  than  a  part,  is  believed  for  its  own  sake.  And  to 
higher  intellects,  truths  at  which  we  arrive  by  laborious  pro- 
cess, appear  in  their  own  light,  as  axioms  appear  to  us.  So  also 
with  regard  to  morals.  There  are  some  propositions  which  every 
human  being  sees  to  be  true,  the  moment  they  are  announced. 
There  are  others  which  must  be  proved  to  him.  And  the  higher 
the  moral  cultivation,  or  purity  of  the  soul,  is  carried,  the  wider 
is  the  range  of  this  moral  intuition.  So  also  with  regard  to 
religious  truth.  That  God  is  a  Spirit,  infinite,  eternal,  and  un- 
changeable in  his  being,  wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justice,  good- 
ness, and  truth ;  that  he  is  not  a  Jupiter,  or  a  Moloch,  is 
believed  with  an  intimate  conviction  which  no  argument  nor 
external  evidence  can  possibly  produce.  It  is  believed  for  its 
own  sake.  It  cannot  be  understood  or  perceived  in  its  true 
nature  without  the  persuasion  of  its  truth  rising  in  the  mind. 
No  man  believes  that  malignity  is  wrong  on  external  autliority  ; 
and  no  man  believes  that  God  is  good,  because  it  can  be  logically 


i 

/» 


90  THE    LATEST     FORM     OF     INFIDELITY. 

demonstrated.  The  ground  of  faith  in  moral  truth,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  is  the  perception  of  the  nature  of  the  truth 
believed.  It  is  seen  and  felt  to  be  true.  That  one  man  does  not 
see  a  proposition  in  morals  to  be  true,  can  have  no  effect  upon  him 
who  does  perceive  it.  And  the  only  way  to  produce  conviction 
in  the  mind  of  him  who  doubts  or  disbelieves,  is  to  remove  the 
darkness  which  prevents  the  perception  of  the  truth  to  be  believed. 
If  seen  in  its  true  nature,  it  is  believed  ;  just  as  beauty  is  believed 
as  soon  as  seen.  "Faith  is  no  work  of  reason,  and  therefore  can- 
not be  overthroAvn  by  it,  since  believing  no  more  arises  from 
arguments  than  tasting  or  seeing."' 

It  is  very  true,  that  the  great  majority  of  men  have  no  such 
perception  of  the  peculiar  truths  of  the  gospel  as  produces  this 
unwavering  faith.  The  only  belief  that  they  have  rests  on  tra- 
dition, or  prejudice,  or,  in  the  learned  few,  on  the  external 
evidences  of  the  gospel.  The  reason  of  this  fact,  however,  is  not 
that  the  doctrines  in  question  do  not  contain  the  evidence  of 
their  own  truth,  but  that  the  minds  of  the  majority  of  men  are 
not  in  a  state  to  perceive  it.  What  is  the  reason  that  savages 
do  not  perceive  many  things  to  be  wrong,  the  moral  turpitude  of 
which  is  to  us  a  matter  of  intuition  .^  The  reason  lies  in  the 
state  of  their  minds.  So,  also,  the  "  natural  man  receiveth  not 
the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  for  they  are  foolishness  unto 
him ;  neither  can  he  know  them  ;  for  they  are  spiritually  dis- 
cerned. But  he  that  is  spiritual  discerneth  all  things."  The 
spiritual  man,  then,  (that  is,  the  man  under  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,)  discerns  the  excellence  of  the  things  of  the  Spirit ; 
and  he  receives  them  because  he  does  discern  them.  He  sees 
the  excellence  of  the  divine  character ;  the  glory  of  God  as  it 
shines  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ  ;  the  perfection  of  the  divine 
law ;  the  accordance  of  the  declarations  of  God  with  his  own 
experience  ;  the  suitableness  of  the  plan  of  salvation  to  his 
necessities,  and  to  the  perfections  of  God.  He  feels  the  power 
which  attends  these  truths  in  his  own  soul,  and  his  f  lith,  there- 
fore, rests  not  on  the  wisdom  of  man,  but  on  the  power  of  God. 
It  must  be  remembered,  that  the  Bible  is  a  whole.  The  believer 
sees  these  doctrines  every  where,  and  he  therefore  believes  the 

*  Dcr  Glaubo  ist  kein  Werk  der  Yernunft,  kann  also  auch  keinen  Angriffon  der» 
selben  unterliegon,  woil  Glauben  so  wenig  durch  Griinde  geschieht,  als  Scluneekou 
und  Sehen. 


THE    LATEST     FORM     OF     INFIDELITY.  91 

whole.  One  portion  of  Scripture  supposes  and  confirms  another. 
The  authority  of  the  ancient  prophets,  of  Christ,  and  of  the 
apostles,  is  one  and  indivisible.  As  the  prophets  testified  to 
Christ,  so  he  testified  of  them.  As  Christ  testified  of  the  apos- 
tles, so  did  they  testify  of  him.  The  object  of  the  believer's 
faith,  therefore,  is  the  whole  Bible.  He  sees  every  where  the 
same  God,  the  same  law,  the  same  Saviour,  the  same  plan  of 
redemption.  He  believes  the  whole,  because  it  is  one  glorious 
system  of  eflpulgent  truth. 

As  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  on  this  subject,  so  it  is  also 
the  doctrine  of  the  church.  Were  it  our  present  object  to  estab- 
lish this  point,  the  correctness  of  the  above  statement  could  be 
easily  proved.  We  cannot  forbear,  however,  to  quote  the 
following  beautiful  passage  from  the  Westminster  Confession  : 
"  We  may  be  moved  and  induced,"  says  that  venerable  symbol, 
"by  the  testimony  of  the  church,  to  an  high  and  reverend  esteem 
tor  the  Holy  Scripture  ;  and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the 
efficacy  of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  consent  of 
all  the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole,  (which  is  to  give  all  glory 
to  God,)  the  full  discovery  which  it  makes  of  the  only  way  of 
man's  salvation,  the  many  other  incomparable  excellencies,  and 
the  entire  perfection  thereof,  are  arguments  whereby  it  doth 
abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God  ;  yet,  notwith- 
standing, our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth 
and  divine  authority  thereof,  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  truth  in  our  hearts." 

Owen  wrote  a  treatise  on  this  subject,  which  bears  the  impress 
of  his  sound  and  vigorous  understanding,  as  well  as  of  his  inti- 
mate acquaintance  with  the  nature  of  true  religion.'  In  his 
Treatise  on  the  Keason  of  Faith,  he  says  :  "  The  formal  reason 
of  faith,  divine  and  supernatural,  whereby  we  believe  the  Scrip- 
tures to  be  the  word  of  God,  in  the  way  of  duty,  as  it  is  required 
of  us,  is  the  authority  and  veracity  of  God  alone,  evidencing 
themselves  unto  our  minds  and  consciences,  in  and  by  the  Scrip- 
ture itself.  And  herein  consisteth  that  divine  testimony  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  which,  as  it  is  a  testimony,  gives  our  assent  unto 
the  Scripture,  the  general  nature  of  faith,  and,  as  it  is  a  divine 

'  See  his  work  on  the  Divine  Authority,  Self-evidencing  Light,  and  Power  of  the 
Scriptures,  with  an  answer  to  the  iuquhy,  How  wo  know  the  Scriptures  to  be  the 
word  of  God  ? 


92  THE    LATEST    FORM    OF    INFIDELITY. 

testimony,  gives  it  the  especial  nature  of  faith  divine  and  super- 
natural. 

"  This  divine  testimony  given  unto  the  divine  original  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  in  and  by  itself,  wherein  our  faith  is  ultimately 
resolved,  is  evidencpd  and  made  known,  as  by  the  character  of 
the  infinite  perfections  of  the  divine  nature  which  are  in  and 
upon  it ;  so  by  the  authority,  power,  and  efficacy,  over  and 
upon  the  souls  and  consciences  of  men,  and  the  satisfactory 
excellence  of  the  truths  contained  therein,  wherewith  it  is 
accompanied." 

This  view  of  the  ground  of  faith  is  confirmed  by  the  experience 
and  testimony  of  the  people  of  God  in  all  ages. 

It  is  a  monstrous  idea,  that  the  thousands  of  illiterate  saints 
who  have  entered  eternity  in  the  full  assurance  of  hope,  had  no 
better  foundation  for  their  faith  than  the  testimony  of  the  learned 
to  the  truth  of  the  Bible.  Let  the  advocates  of  such  an  opinion 
ask  the  true  Christian,  why  he  believes  the  word  of  God,  and 
they  will  find  he  can  give  some  better  reason  for  the  hope  that  is 
in  him  than  the  faith  or  testimony  of  others.  Let  them  try  the 
resources  of  their  philosophy,  empirical  or  transcendental,  on  a 
faith  founded  on  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  and  with 
the  truth  ;  let  them  try  the  effect  of  demonstrating  that  such 
and  such  doctrines  cannot  be  true ;  they  will  assuredly  meet 
with  the  simple  answer,  "One  thing  I  know,  whereas  I  was  blind 
now  I  see." 

It  is  by  no  means  intended  to  undervalue  the  importance  of 
the  external  evidence  of  a  divine  revelation,  whether  derived 
from  miracles,  prophecy,  or  any  other  source,  but  simply  to 
protest  against  the  extreme  doctrine  of  Mr.  Norton's  discourse  : 
that  such  evidence  is  the  only  proof  of  a  divine  revelation,  and 
that  all  who  cannot  examine  such  evidence  for  themselves  must 
take  their  religion  upon  trust.  The  refutation  of  this  doctrine 
occupies  much  the  larger  portion  of  the  Letter  of  the  Alumnus  of 
the  Cambridge  Theological  School,  the  title  of  which  is  placed  at 
the  head  of  this  article.  The  argument  of  the  Alumnus,  as  far 
as  it  is  a  refutation,  is  perfectly  successful.  With  his  own 
doctrine,  we  are  as  little  satisfied  as  with  that  of  Mr.  Norton. 
"The  truths  of  Christianity,"  he  tells  us,  "have  always  been 
addressed  to  the  intuitive  perceptions  of  the  common  mind/'^ 
'Letter,  &c.  p.  116. 


THE    LATEST     FORM    OF    INFIDELITY.  93 

He  quotes  with  raucli  commendation,  the  following  passage  from 
Professor  Park,  of  Anclover  :  "  The  argument  from  miracles  is  not 
the  kind  of  proof  to  which  the  majority  of  cordial  helievers  in  the 
Bible  are,  at  the  present  day,  most  attached.  They  have  neither 
the  time  nor  the  ability  to  form  an  estimate  of  the  historical 
evidence  that  favors  or  opposes  the  actual  occurrence  of  miracles. 
They  know  the  Bible  to  be  true,  because  they  feel  it  to  be  so. 
The  excellence  of  its  morality,  like  a  magnet,  attracts  their 
souls  ;  and  sophistry,  which  they  cannot  refute,  will  not  weaken 
their  faith,  resulting  as  it  does,  from  the  accordance  of  their 

HIGHER  NATURE  WITH  THE  SPIRIT  OF  THE  BIBLE."     Tllis  language, 

as  coming  from  Professor  Park,  if  it  be  any  thing  more  than  a 
specimen  of  the  desire  to  express  a  familiar  truth  in  a  philosoph- 
ical form,  is  something  far  worse.  If  this  "higher  nature"  of 
man,  which  thus  accords  with  the  spirit  of  the  Bible,  is  his 
renewed  nature — his  nature  purified  and  enlightened  by  the 
Holy  Spirit — then  we  have  a  solemn  truth  disguised  in  order  to 
secure  favor  with  the  world.  But  if  this  "higher  nature"  be  the 
nature  of  man,  in  any  of  its  aspects,  as  it  exists  before  regenera- 
tion, then  is  the  language  of  Professor  Park  a  betrayal  of  the 
scriptural  truth.  The  doctrines  of  depravity,  and  of  the  necessity 
of  divine  influence  are  virtually  denied.  That  which  is  born  of 
the  flesh,  is  flesh  ;  unless  a  man  be  born  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot 
see  the  kingdom  of  Grod ;  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  Grod ; 
the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  Grod, 
for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him  ;  we  preach  Christ  crucified,  unto 
the  Jews  a  stumbling  block,  and  to  the  Greeks  foolishness,  but 
unto  them  which  are  called  (and  to  them  only)  Christ  the  power 
of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God.  To  assert,  therefore,  the 
accordance  of  the  higher  nature  of  unrenewed  men  with  the 
spirit  of  the  Bible,  is  to  contradict  one  of  the  primary  doctrines 
of  the  word  of  God.  It  contradicts,  moreover,  universal  experi- 
ence. Does  the  character  of  God,  as  a  being  of  inflexible  justice 
and  perfect  holiness  ;  do  the  doctrines  of  Christ  crucified,  of  the 
corruption  of  man,  of  the  necessity  of  regeneration  by  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  eternal  retribution,  commend  them- 
selves to  the  hearts  of  unrenewed  men  .?  Are  they  not,  on  the 
contrary,  rejected  by  those  who  delight  to  talk  of  the  accordance 
of  their  higher  nature  with  the  spirit  of  the  Bible  ? 

If  the  passage  on  which  we  are  commenting,  refers  to  nothing 


94  the'latest  form  of  infidelity. 

more  than  the  accordance  between  the  ethics  of  the  Bible  and 
the  moral  sense  of  men,  and  between  its  general  representations 
of  God  and  human  reason,  it  is  still  more  objectionable.  It 
supposes  that  all  that  is  peculiar  to  the  gospel,  all  that  distin- 
guishes it  from  a  system  of  natural  religion,  may  be  left  out  of 
view,  and  yet  its  spirit,  its  essential  part,  remain.  Is  the  sjjirit  of 
a  system  which  makes  Christ  a  mere  man,  which  denies  the 
apostacy  of  our  race,  which  rejects  the  doctrines  of  atonement  and 
regeneration,  the  spirit  of  the  Bible  ?  Then,  indeed,  has  the 
offence  of  the  cross  ceased. 

While,  therefore,  we  dissent  from  Mr.  Norton's  doctrine,  that 
miracles  are  the  only  adequate  proof  of  a  divine  revelation,  and 
that  those  who  cannot  examine  that  proof  for  themselves,  must 
believe  upon  the  testimony  of  others,  we  dissent  no  less  earnestly 
from  the  doctrine  of  his  opponent,  that  Christianity  is  addressed 
to  the  intuitive  perceptions  of  the  common  mind  ;  that  it  is 
embraced  because  of  the  accordance  of  its  spirit  with  the  higher 
nature  of  man.  We  believe  the  external  evidence  of  the  Bible  to 
be  perfectly  conclusive  ;  we  believe  its  internal  ev^idence,  (that  is, 
its  majesty,  its  purity,  its  consistency,  its  manifold  perfections,) 
to  be  no  less  satisfactory;  but  we  believe  also,  that  the  ultimate 
foundation  of  the  Christian's  faith,  is  the  testimony  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  by  and  with  the  truth  in  our  hearts. 

Thousjh  the  author  of  the  letter  to  Mr.  Norton  devotes  most 
of  his  attention  to  the  refutation  of  the  doctrine  above  stated, 
respecting  miracles,  the  feature  of  the  discourse  which  seems  to 
have  given  him  and  his  friends  the  greatest  umbrage,  is  its 
denunciatory  character ;  that  is,  its  venturing  to  assert,  that 
those  who  deny  the  miracles  of  Christianity  are  infidels.  This, 
it  appears,  was  considered  singularly  out  of  taste,  and  incongru- 
ous, seeing  the  discourse  was  delivered  before  an  association  of 
liberal  theologians.  Its  members,  it  is  said,  "agree  in  the 
rejection  of  many  articles  of  faith  which  have  usually  been  held 
sacred  in  the  church  ;  a  traditional  theology  has  taken  no  strong 
hold  of  their  minds  ;  they  deem  the  simple  truths  of  Christianity 
more  important  than  the  mysteries  that  have  been  combined 
with  them  ;  but  the  principle  of  their  union  has  never  been  made 
to  consist  in  any  speculative  belief;  no  test  has  been  required  as 
a  condition  of  fellowship  ;  the  mere  suggestion  of  such  a  course 
would  be  met  only  with  a  smile  of  derision."     The  Association 


THE    LATEST    FOEM     OF     INFIDELITY.  95 

"  is  composed  of  the  alumni  of  a  theological  school,  which  has 
always  claimed  the  favor  of  the  community,  on  account  of  its 
freedom  from  an  exclusive  spirit ;  its  confidence  in  the  safety  and 
utility  of  thorough  inquiry  in  all  matters  of  ftiith  ;  its  attachment 
to  the  principles  of  liberal  theology  ;  and  its  renunciation  of  the 
desire  to  impose  articles  of  belief  on  the  minds  of  its  pupils."' 
That  the  exclusive  principle  should  be  adopted  in  a  discourse 
before  such  an  audience  was  not  to  be  expected.  By  this  prin- 
ciple is  meant,  "  the  assumption  of  the  right  for  an  individual,  or 
for  any  body  of  individuals,  to  make  their  own  private  opinions 
the  measure  of  what  is  fundamental  in  the  Christian  faith.  As 
liberal  Christians,"  it  is  said,  "  we  have  long  protested  against  this 
principle,  as  contrary  to  the  very  essence  of  Protestantism.  It 
was  not  because  our  exclusive  brethren  made  a  belief  in  the 
Trinity  a  test  of  allegiance  to  Christ,  that  we  accused  them  of 
inconsistency  with  the  liberty  of  the  gospel ;  but  because  they 
presumed  to  erect  any  standard  whatever,  according  to  which 
the  faith  of  individuals  should  be  made  to  conform  to  the  judg- 
ment of  others.  It  was  not  any  special  application  of  the 
principle  that  we  objected  to  ;  but  the  principle  itself ;  and, 
assuredly,  the  exercise  of  this  principle  does  not  change  its 
character,  by  reason  of  the  source  from  which  it  proceeds."^ 

This  strikes  us  as  very  good  declamation,  but  very  poor  reason- 
ing. There  may  be  just  complaint  about  the  application  of  the 
exclusive  principle  ;  but  to  complain  of  the  principle,  is  certainly 
very  unreasonable.  The  author  of  this  letter  is  just  as  exclusive 
as  Mr.  Norton,  and  Mr.  Norton  as  the  Trinitarians.  They  draw 
the  line  of  exclusion  at  different  places  ;  but  all  must  draw  it 
some  where.  An  infidel  is  a  man  who  denies  the  truth  of  the 
Christian  religion.  That  religion  is  certainly  something.  Differ- 
ent men  may  have  different  views  of  what  it  consists,  or  what  is 
essential  to  it.  But  all  must  regard  it  as  embracing  some  doc- 
trines, or  it  would  cease  to  be  a  religion  ;  and,  consequently, 
they  must  regard  those  who  reject  those  doctrines  as  infidels, 
whether  they  say  so  or  not.  This  Alumnus  would  hardly  call 
Mohammedans  Christians,  though  they  reckon  Abraham  and 
Christ  among  the  prophets,  and  believe  in  God  and  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul.  Would  he  then  caU  him  a  Christian  who 
denies  the  divine  mission  of  Christ,  the  being  of  an  intelhgent 
'  Letter,  &c.,  pp.  5  and  6.  «  Letter,  &c.,  pp.  23  and  24. 


96  THE    LATEST    FOKM     OF     INFIDELITY. 

Grod,  and  the  existence  of  the  soul  after  death,  merely  because  he 
lives  in  a  Christian  country,  and  assumes  the  Christian  name  ? 
This  would  be  to  make  liberality  ridiculous.  Yet  such  claimants 
of  the  Christian  name  are  beginning  to  abound.  Mr.  Norton, 
therefore,  is  not  to  be  blamed,  even  as  a  "liberal  theologian,"  for 
the  adoption  of  the  exclusive  principle.  He  may  have  drawn  the 
line  in  an  inconvenient  place  ;  he  may  have  violated  the  code  of 
Unitarian  etiquette,  in  making  a  belief  in  miracles  essential  to  a 
beh'ef  in  Christianity,  and  thus  justly  exposed  himself  to  the 
charge  of  a  breach  of  privilege  ;  but  he  can  hardly  be  blamed  for 
making  the  belief  of  something  necessary  to  entitle  a  man  to  the 
name  of  a  Christian.  We  have  no  doubt,  his  real  offence  was  in 
drawing  the  line  of  exclusion  in  such  a  manner  as  to  cast  out  of 
the  pale  of  even  liberal  Christianity,  some  who  are  not  disposed  to 
be  thus  publicly  disowned.  This  is,  indeed,  distinctly  stated. 
"  Your  declaration,"  says  the  author  of  the  letter,  to  Mr.  Norton, 
"  is  that  a  certain  kind  of  evidence,  in  your  view,  establishes  the 
truth  of  Christianity,  and  that  he  who  rests  his  faith  on  any 
other  is  an  infidel,  notwithstanding  his  earnest  and  open  profes- 
sions to  the  contrary.  You  thus,  in  fact,  denied  the  name  of 
Christian  to  not  a  few  individuals  in  your  audience,  although 
you  avoided  discussing  the  grounds  by  which  their  opinions  are 
supported.  For  it  is  perfectly  well  known,  that  many  of  our 
most  eminent  clergymen — I  will  not  refrain  from  speaking  of 
them  as  they  deserve  on  account  of  ray  personal  sympathy  with 
their  views — repose  their  belief  on  a  different  foundation  from 
that  which  you  approve  as  the  only  tenable  one."  It  is  plain, 
therefore,  that  the  offensive  exclusiveuess  of  Mr.  Norton's  Dis- 
course consisted  in  denying  the  Christian  name  to  those  who 
deny  the  miracles  of  Christ. 

It  appears  to  us,  however,  that  the  writer  of  this  letter  does 
Mr.  Norton  great  injustice.  He  accuses  him  of  confounding  "two 
propositions  which  are  essentially  distinct  :  a  belief  in  a  divine 
revelation,  and  a  belief  in  the  miracles  alleged  in  its  support. 
You  utterly  confound,"  it  is  said,  "the  divine  origin  of  Christian- 
ity, and  a  certain  class  of  the  proofs  of  its  divine  origin."^?.  34. 
Mr.  Norton  does  not  confound  these  two  things  ;  nor  does  he,  as 
represented  by  this  writer,  pronounce  all  those  to  be  infidels 
whose  faith  rests  on  any  other  foundatian  than  miracles.  He 
declares  those  to  be  infidels  who  deny  the  miracles  of  the  New 


THE    LATEST     FORM     OF     INFIDELITY.  97 

Testament,  but  this  is  a  very  different  affair.  Many  who  feel  the 
force  of  other  kinds  of  evidence  much  more  than  that  of  miracles, 
and  whose  faith,  therefore,  does  not  rest  on  that  foundation, 
admit  their  truth.  Mr.  Norton's  doctrine  is,  that  the  miraculous 
accounts  contained  in  the  New  Testament  are  so  interwoven  with 
all  the  other  portions  of  the  history,  and  enter  so  essentially  into 
the  nature  of  the  whole  system  of  Christianity,  that  they  cannot 
be  denied,  without  denying  what  is  essential  to  the  Christian 
religion.  There  is  no  confusion  here  of  the  thing  to  be  proved, 
and  the  proof  itself.  It  is  true,  he  teaches  that  miracles  are  the 
only  proof  of  a  divine  revelation.  But  this  is  only  one  of  his 
reasons  for  maintaining  that  the  rejection  of  the  miracles  of 
Christianity,  is  a  rejection  of  Christianity  itself  We  believe  this 
latter  jiroposition,  though  we  do  not  believe  the  former.  We  be- 
lieve that  miracles  are  essential  to  Christianity,  though  we  do  not 
believe  that  they  are  the  only  sufficient  proof  of  its  divine  origin. 

The  Alumnus  moreover  censures  Mr.  Norton  severely,  for  call- 
ing Spinoza  an  Atheist  and  Pantheist.  The  propriety  of  this 
censure  depends  on  the  sense  given  to  the  terms  employed.  An 
Atheist  is  one  who  denies  the  existence  of  God.  But  what  is 
(xod  ?  If  the  term  be  so  extended  as  to  include  even  a  blind  vis 
formativa  operative  through  the  universe,  then  there  never  was 
an  Atheist.  But  if  the  term  is  used  in  its  true  scriptural 
sense  ;  if  it  designates  an  intelligent  and  moral  being,  distinct 
from  his  creatures,  whose  essence  is  not  their  essence,  whose  acts 
are  not  their  acts,  and  especially  whose  consciousness  is  not  their 
consciousness,  then  Spinoza  was  an  Atheist.  He  acknowledges 
no  such  being.  The  universe  was  God  ;  or  rather  all  creatures 
where  but  the  phenomena  of  the  only  really  existing  being.  It 
may,  indeed,  seem  incongruous  to  call  a  man  an  Atheist,  of  whom 
it  may  with  equal  truth  be  said,  that  he  believed  in  nothing  but 
God.  But  in  the  sense  stated  above,  which  is  a  correct  and 
acknowledged  sense  of  the  term,  Spinoza  was  an  Atheist. 

"We  come  now,"  says  the  Alumnus,  "to  a  still  more  extra- 
ordinary mistake,  which  arose  probably  from  the  habit,  too 
prevalent  among  us,  of  grouping  together  theologians  who  have 
scarcely  anything  in  common,  but  the  language  in  which  they 
write.  You  class  Schleiermacher  with  the  modern  German 
school,  whose  disciples  are  called  Rationalists  or  Naturalists." — 
P.  133.     This  he  says  is  as  whimsical  a  mistake  as  if  a  foreigner 


98  THE    LATEST     FORM    OF     INFIDELITY. 

were  to  describe  the  celebrated  Dr.  Beecber  as  one  of  the  most 
noted  of  the  Unitarian  school,  in  New  England.  This  mistake 
is  not  quite  as  whimsical  as  the  author  supposes.  The  term 
Rationalist  is,  indeed,  commonly  e.mployed  to  designate  those 
who,  making  reason  the  source  as  well  as  the  standard  of  relig- 
ious truth,  deny  all  divine  revelation.  Have  the  pietists,  says 
Rhor,  the  superintendent  of  Weimar,  yet  to  learn  that  we  admit 
no  other  revelation  in  Christ  than  such  as  occurred  in  Socrates  or 
Plato  ?  Of  such  Rationalists,  who  are  in  Germany  just  what  the 
Deists  are  in  England,  Schleiermacher,  and  all  the  transcendal 
school,  were  the  determined  and  contemptuous  opponents.  In 
another  sense,  however,  the  term  Rationalist  is  applicable,  and  is 
in  fact  applied,  to  the  transcendentalists  of  the  highest  grade. 
Under  the  head  of  the  Mystisch-spekulative  Rationalismus, 
Tholuck  includes  the  gnosticism  of  the  first  centuries,  the  Pan- 
theists of  the  middle  ages,  and  of  modern  Germany.'  To  this 
class  of  mystical  Rationalists,  Schleieraiacher  undoubtedly  be- 
longed. As,  however,  the  term  is  generally  applied  to  the 
deistical  opposers  of  a  supernatural  revelation,  with  whom  he 
was  ever  in  controversy,  it  certainly  produces  confusion  to  call 
Schleiermacher  himself  a  Rationalist.  As  to  the  question, 
whether  he  was  a  Pantheist,  as  it  is  a  matter  about  which  his 
learned  cotemporaries  in  his  own  country  are  at  variance,  we  may 
well  stand  in  doubt.  Few  unbiassed  readers  of  his  Reden  iiber 
die  Religion,  however,  could  regard  him  in  any  other  light  when 
those  discourses  were  written.  They  are,  to  be  sure,  a  rhapsody, 
full  of  genius  and  feeling,  but  still  a  rhapsody,  in  which  the  mean- 
ing is  a  very  secondary  concern  ;  which  the  reader  is  not  expected 
to  understand,  but  simply  to  feel.  Such  a  book  may  betray  a  man's 
sentiments,  but  is  hardly  fit  to  be  cited  in  any  doctrinal  contro- 
versy. Schleiermacher  was  a  very  extraordinary  man.  Though 
he  placed  far  too  little  stress  on  historical  Christianity,  (i.  e.,  on 
the  religion  of  Christ,  considered  as  objective  revelation,  recorded 
in  the  New  Testament,)  yet  as  he  made  Christ  the  centre  of  his 
mystical  system,  exalting  him  as  the  perfect  manifestation  of 
God,  he  exerted  an  extraordinary  influence  in  breaking  down  the 
authority  of  those  deistical  Rationalists,  who  were  accustomed  to 
speak  of  Christ  as  altogether  such  an  one  as  themselves.  He 
was  once  a  Moravian,  and  there  is  reason  to  believe,  that  the 
'  Tholuck '3  Glaubwurdigkeit  der  evangel.   Geschicb.  &c.,  Ch.  1. 


THE    LATEST    FORM     OF    INFIDELITY.  99 

interior  life  of  his  soul  existed,  after  all,  more  under  the  form 
thus  originally  impressed  upon  it,  than  under  the  influence  of 
his  subsequent  sjjeculations.  It  was  no  uncommon  thing  for  him 
to  call  upon  his  family  to  join  with  him  in  singing  some  devout 
Moravian  hymn  of  praise  to  Christ  ;  and  though  his  preaching 
was  of  a  philosophical  cast,  yet  the  hymns  which  he  assigned 
were  commonly  expressive  in  a  high  degree,  of  devotional  feeling 
and  correct  sentiment.'  Such  a  worshipper  of  Christ  ought  not  to 
be  confounded  with  such  heartless  Deists  as  Paulus,  Wegschei- 
der,  and  Khcir. 

The  Alumnus  makes  another  objection  to  Mr.  Norton's  dis- 
course, the  justice  of  which  we  admit.  It  does  not  fulfil  the 
expectations  which  the  annunciation  of  his  subject  excites.  It 
is  not  a  discourse  on  the  Latest  Form  of  Infidelity  ;  it  is  a  mere 
consideration  of  one  subordinate  feature  of  that  form,  viz.,  the 
denial  of  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament.  And  this  feature 
is  by  no  means  characteristic  of  the  system,  as  this  denial  was  as 
formally  made  by  Paulus  as  it  is  now  by  Strauss,  men  who  have 
scarcely  any  other  opinion  in  common.  Mr.  Norton's  discourse 
gives  us  little  insight  into  the  form  which  infidelity  has  recently 
assumed  in  Germany,  and  still  less  into  the  nature  of  the  opinions 
vv^hich  have  begun  to  prevail  in  his  own  neighborhood.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Alumnus,  it  is  better  adapted  to  mislead  than  to 
inform  the  reader,  as  far  as  this  latter  point  is  concerned.  "  You 
announce,'  says  he  to  Mr.  Norton,  "  as  the  theme  of  your  dis- 
course, '  the  characteristics  of  the  times,  and  some  of  those 
opinions  now  prevalent,  which  are  at  war  with  a  belief  in  Chris- 
tianity.' This,  certainly,  was  a  judicious  opening,  and  I  only 
speak  the  sentiments  of  your  whole  audience,  when  I  say  that  it 
was  heard  v/ith  universal  pleasure.  It  at  once  brought  up  a  sub- 
ject of  the  highest  importance,  of  no  small  difficulty,  and  of 
singular  interest  to  our  community  at  the  present  moment.  It 
gave  promise  that  you  would  discuss  the  character  and  tendency 
of  opinions  now  prevalent  in  the  midst  of  us  ;  that  you  would 
meet  some  of  the  objections  which  have  been  advanced  to  popular 
theological  ideas  ;  that  you  would  come  directly  to  the  great 
questions  that  are  at  issue  between  difi'erent  portions  of  the 
audience  which  you  addressed.     But  instead  of  this  mode  of  pro- 

'  It  was  his  habit  to  have  these  hymns  printed  on  slips  of  paper  and  distributed 
to  the  people  at  the  door  of  his  church. 


100  THE    LATEST     FORM     OF     INFIDELITY. 

ceeding,  you  adopted  one  which  could  not  have  been  expected 
from  your  statement  of  the  subject,  and  which  I  conceive  to  have 
been  singularly  irrelevant  to  the  demands  of  your  audience,  and 
the  nature  of  the  occasion.  Instead  of  meeting,  face  to  face,  the 
opinions  which  have  found  favor  with  many  of  the  theologians  in 
this  country,  which  are  publicly  maintained  from  the  pulpit  and 
the  press,  in  our  own  immediate  community,  which  form  the 
cardinal  points  on  which  speculation  is  divided  among  us,  you 
appear  studiously  to  avoid  all  mention  of  them  ;  no  one  could 
infer  from  your  remarks,  that  any  novel  ideas  had  been  broached 
in  our  theological  world,  excepting  such  as  can  be  traced  back  to 
the  sceptical  reasonings  of  Spinoza  and  Hume,  and  a  compara- 
tively small  class  of  the  modern  theologians  of  Germany/"  He 
then  denies  that  the  writings  of  Spinoza,  Hume,  or  of  the 
German  Kationalists,  (in  the  limited  sense  of  that  term,)  were 
exerting  any  influence  among  the  theologians  of  Boston,  and 
that  the  speculations  which  really  prevailed,  had  a  very  difierent 
origin. 

It  is  clear,  from  all  this,  that  a  serious  and  wide  breach  has 
occurred  between  different  classes  of  the  Unitarian  divines  in 
New  England,  but  tlie  real  character  of  the  novel  ideas  cannot 
be  learned  either  from  Mr.  Norton's  discourse  or  from  the  letter 
of  the  Alumnus.  It  is,  indeed,  sufficiently  plain,  from  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  latter  speaks  of  pantlieistic  writers,  that  the 
new  philosophy  is  the  source  of  the  difficulty.  Speaking  of  the 
system  of  Spinoza,  which  he  admits  to  be  pantheistic,  in  a  philo- 
sophical sense,  inasmuch  as  it  denies  "real,  substantial  existence 
to  finite  objects,"  he  says,  "  no  one  avIio  understands  the  subject, 
will  accuse  this  doctrine  of  an  irreligious  tendency.  It  is  religious 
even  to  mysticism  ;  on  that  account,  as  well  as  for  certain  philo- 
sophical objections  it  labors  under,  [the  Bible,  it  seems,  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  question,]  I  cannot  adopt  it  as  a  theory 
of  the  universe  ;  but,  I  trust,  I  shall  never  cease  to  venerate  the 
holy  and  exalted  spirit  of  its  author,  who,  in  the  meek  simplicity 
of  his  life,  the  transparent  beauty  of  his  character,  and  the  pure 
devotion  with  which  he  wooed  truth,  even  as  a  bride,  stands 
almost  '  alone,  unapproached,'  among  men." — P.  126.  Such  lan- 
guage, in  reference  to  a  system  which  denies  the  existence  of  a 
personal  God,  the  individuality  of  the  human  soul,  which  neces- 
'  Letter,  &c.,  pp.  17  and  18. 


THE    LATEST    FORM    OF    INFIDELITY.  101 

sarily  obliterates  all  distinction  between  right  and  wrong,  betrays 
a  singular  perversion  of  ideas,  and  an  entire  renunciation  of  all 
scriptural  views  of  the  nature  of  religion.  To  call  that  obscure 
and  mystic  sentiment  religion,  which  arises  from  the  contempla- 
tion of  the  incomprehensible  and  infinite,  is  to  change  Christian- 
ity into  Buddhism.  The  result  in  fact,  to  which  the  philosophy 
of  the  nineteenth  century  has  brought  its  votaries. 

In  another  place,  however,  he  says  of  the  leading  school  in 
modern  German  theology,  "  that  the  impression  of  the  powerful 
genius  of  Schleiermacher  is  everj'^  where  visible  in  its  character  ; 
but  it  includes  no  servile  disciples  ;  it  combines  men  of  free 
minds,  who  respect  each  other's  efforts,  whatever  may  be  their 
individual  conclusions  ;  and  the  central  point  at  which  they  meet 
is  the  acknowledgment  of  the  divine  character  of  Christ,  the 
divine  origin  of  his  religion,  and  its  adaptation  to  the  world, 
when  presented  in  a  form  corresponding  with  its  inherent  spirit, 
and  with  the  scientific  culture  of  the  present  age.  There  are  few 
persons  who  would  venture  to  charge  such  a  school  with  the  pro- 
mulgation of  infidelity  ;  there  are  many,  I  doubt  not,  who  will 
welcome  its  principles,  as  soon  as  they  are  understood,  as  the 
vital,  profound,  and  ennobling  theology,  which  they  have  earnestly 
sought  for,  but  hitherto  sought  in  vain." — P.  146. 

It  is  difficult  to  know  hoAv  this  paragraph  is  to  be  understood. 
If  restricted  to  a  few  of  the  personal  friends  and  pupils  of 
Schleiermacher,  such  as  Liicke,  Ullmann,  Twesten,  and  a  few 
others,  the  description  has  some  semblance  of  truth.  But,  in 
this  case,  it  is  no  longer  the  "  leading  school  of  modern  German 
theology"  that  the  writer  is  describing.  And  if  extended  to  the 
really  dominant  school,  the  description  is  as  foreign  from  the 
truth  as  can  well  be  imagined. 

We  have  so  recently  exhibited  at  considerable  length,  the 
nature  of  the  prevalent  system  of  German  theology  and  philoso- 
phy,' that  we  may  well  be  excused  from  entering  again  at  large 
upon  the  subject.  As,  however,  it  is  a  subject  of  constantly 
increasing  interest,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  give  a  few  additional 
proofs  of  the  true  character  of  the  Latest  Form  of  Infidelity.  In 
doing  this,  we  shall  avail  ourselves  of  the  authority  of  such  men 
as  Leo,  Hengstenberg,  and  Tholuck,  men  of  the  highest  rank  in 
their  own  country  for  talents,  learning  and  integrity.  We  shall  let 
•  Biblical  Repertory  and  Princeton  Review,  January,  1839. 


102  THE    LATEST     FORM    OF     INFIDELITY. 

them  describe  this  new  form  of  philosophy,  which  is  turning  the 
heads  of  our  American  scholars,  inflating  some  and  dementing 
others  ;  and  we  shall  leave  it  to  our  transcendental  countrymen, 
if  they  see  cause,  to  accuse  these  German  scholars  and  Christians 
of  ignorance  and  misrepresentation. 

It  is  well  known  to  all  who  have  paid  the  least  attention  to 
the  subject,  that  the  prevalent  system  of  philosophy  in  Germany 
is  that  of  Hegel  ;  and  that  this  system  has,  to  a  remarkable 
degree,  diffused  itself  among  all  classes  of  educated  men.  It  is 
not  confined  to  recluse  professors  or  speculative  theologians,  but 
finds  its  warmest  advocates  among  statesmen  and  men  of  the 
world.  It  has  its  poets,  its  popular  as  well  as  its  scientific 
journals.  It  is,  in  short,  the  form  in  which  the  German  mind 
now  exists  and  exhibits  itself  to  surrounding  nations,  just  as 
Deism  or  Atheism  was  characteristic  of  France  during  the  reign 
of  terror.  That  a  system  thus  widely  diffused  should  present 
diflerent  phases  might  be  naturally  anticipated.  But  still  it  is 
one  system,  called  by  one  name,  and,  desj)ite  of  occasional 
recriminations  among  its  advocates,  recognised  by  themselves  as 
one  whole.  The  general  characteristic  of  this  school  is  Panthe- 
ism. This,  as  has  been  said,  is  "  the  public  secret  of  Germany;" 
and  "we  must,"  says  Hengstenberg,  "designedly  close  our  own 
eyes  on  all  that  occurs  around  us,  if  we  would  deny  the  truth  of 
this  assertion."'  And  on  the  following  page,  he  says,  that  though 
there  are  a  few  of  the  followers  of  Hegel  who  endeavor  to  recon- 
cile his  principles  with  Christianity,  yet  they  are  spoken  of  with 
contempt  by  their  associates,  who,  as  a  body,  are  "with  the 
clearest  consciousness,  and  as  logically  as  possible  devoted  to 
Pantheism."  They  are,  moreover,  he  adds,  hailed  as  brothers  by 
the  advocates  of  popular  Pantheism,  who  denounce,  under  the 
name  of  pietism,  at  once  Christianity,  Judaism  and  Deism.  This 
was  written  four  years  ago,  a  long  period  in  the  history  of  modern 
philosophy,  and  since  that  time,  the  character  of  the  school  has 
developed  itself  with  constantly  increasing  clearness. 

In  allusion  to  the  French  Chamber  of  Deputies,  this  school  is 
divided  into  two  parts,  the  right  and  the  left.  The  former  teach 
the  principles  of  the  philosophy  in  an  abstruse  form,  as  a  philos- 
ophy ;  the  other  gives  them  a  more  popular  and  intelligible  form. 
This  latter  division  again,  is  divided  into  the  centre  left  and  ex- 

'  Kirchen-Zeitung,  January,  1 836,  p.  19. 


THE    LATEST     FORM     OF    INFIDELITY.  103 

treme  left.  The  one  preserving  some  decorum  and  regard  to 
public  morals  in  their  statements;  and  the  other  recklessly  carry- 
ing out  their  principles  to  the  extreme  of  licentiousness.  To  the 
extreme  left  belong  the  class  which  is  designated  "  Younjr 
Germany,"  of  which  Heine  is  one  of  the  most  prominent  lead- 
ers. This  class  profess  themselves  the  true  disciples  of  the 
extreme  right  ;  the  extreme  right  acknowledge  their  fellowship 
with  the  centre  left,  and  the  centre  left  with  the  extreme  left. 
The  respectable  portion  of  the  party  of  course  express  themselves 
with  disapprobation  of  the  coarseness  of  some  of  their  associates, 
but  they  speak  of  them  only  as  the  unworthy  advocates  of  the  truth. 
Thus  says  Hengstenberg,  "  Professor  Vischer,  one  of  the  most 
gifted  of  the  party,  expresses  himself  with  an  energy  against  the 
'  young  Germans,'  which  shows  that  his  better  feelings  are  not 
yet  obliterated,  and  yet  acknowledges  their  principles  with  a 
decision  and  jjlainness  which  prove  how  deep  those  principles 
enter  into  the  very  essence  of  the  system,  so  that  the  better 
portion  of  the  party  cannot,  with  any  consistency  reject  them. 
In  the  Halle  Jahrbuch,  page  1118,  he  speaks  of  the  Rehabilita- 
tionists'  as  the  '  unworthy  prophets  of  what,  in  its  properly 
understood  principle,  is  perfectly  true  and  good.'  He  says,  '  It  is 
well,  if  in  opposition  to  the  morality  of  Kant  and  Schiller,  the 
rights  of  our  sensual  nature  should,  from  time  to  time,  be  boldly 
asserted.'  He  complains,  page  507,  of  the  pedantry  of  his  coun- 
try, where  the  want  of  chastity  is  placed  on  a  level  with  drunk- 
enness, gluttony,  or  theft,  and  so  expresses  himself  that  every  one 
sees  that  he  considers  incontinence  a  virtue  under  certain  circum- 
stances, and  conjugal  fidelity  a  sin.'"  Though  this  dominant 
party,  therefore,  has  its  divisions,  its  outwardly  decent,  and  its 
openly  indecent  members,  it  is  one  school,  and  is  liable  to  the 
general  charges  which  have  been  brought  against  it  as  a  whole. 

It  may  well  be  supposed  that  a  system  so  repugnant  to  every 
principle  of  true  religion  and  sound  morals,  could  not  be  openly 
advocated,  without  exciting  the  most  decided  opposition.  This 
opposition  has  come  from  various  quarters  ;  from  professed  phi- 
losophers and  theologians,  and  from  popular  writers,  who  have 
attacked  the  system  in  a  manner  adapted  to  the  common  mind. 

'  The  name  assumed  by  those  who  plalid  for  the  rehabilitation  of  the  flesh,  i.  e.,  for 
the  restoration  of  the  sensual  part  of  our  nature  to  its  rights,  of  which  Christianity 
has  so  long  deprived  it.  2  Preface  to  Kirchen-Zeituiig,  for  1839,  p.  30. 


104  THE    LATEST    FORM     OF     INFIDELITY. 

Professor  Leo,  of  Halle,  has  adopted  this  latter  method  of  assault. 
He  is  one  of  the  most  distinguished  historians  of  Germany  ;  and, 
until  within  a  few  years,  himself  belonged  to  the  general  class  of 
Rationalists.  His  History  of  the  Jews  was  written  in  accordance 
with  the  infidel  opinions  which  he  then  entertained.  Having,  how- 
ever, become  a  Christian,  ho  has  publicly  expressed  his  sorrow 
for  having  given  to  the  history  just  mentioned,  the  character 
which  it  now  bears,  and  has,  with  great  boldness  and  vigor, 
attacked  the  writings  of  the  leading  German  school  in  theology. 
This  step  has  excited  a  virulent  controversy,  and  produced  an 
excitement,  particularly  at  Halle,  such  as  has  not  been  known  for 
many  years.  Hengstenberg  says,  that  Leo  has  not  been  sustained 
in  this  conflict,  by  the  friends  of  truth,  as  he  had  a  right  to 
expect.  "One  principal  reason,"  he  adds,  "of  this  reserve,  is  no 
doubt,  in  many  cases,  the  reckless  vulgarity  of  many  of  his  oppo- 
nents. When  they  see  what  Leo  has  had  to  sustain,  they  tremble 
and  exclaim.  Vestigia  me  torrent  !  A  decorous  controversy  with 
opponents  who  have  something  to  lose,  they  do  not  dread,  but 
they  are  unvfilling  to  allow  themselves  to  be  covered  with 
filth."'  Hengstenberg,  however,  is  not  the  man  to  desert  the 
truth  or  its  advocates,  let  what  will  happen.  He  stands  like  a 
rock,  despite  the  violent  assault  of  open  enemies  and  the  coolness 
of  timid  friends,  the  firmest  and  the  most  efiicient  defender  of 
Christianity  in  Germany. 

Leo  entitled  his  book  against  the  latest  form  of  infidelity, 
"  Hegelingen  ;"  that  is,  Hegelians  of  the  left,  in  allusion  to  the 
division  of  the  school  into  a  right  and  left  side.  It  is  presumed, 
he  gave  it  this  title,  because  it  was  intended  to  be  a  popular 
work,  designed  to  exhibit  the  principles  of  the  school  in  a  manner 
suited  to  the  apprehensions  of  the  ordinary  class  of  educated 
people.  It  was,  therefore,  directed,  not  against  that  division  of 
the  school  which  Avrapped  up  its  doctrines  in  the  impenetrable 
folds  of  philosophical  language,  but  against  that  division  which 
have  spoken  somewhat  more  intelligibly. 

With  regard  to  the  charges  which  Leo  brings  against  this 
school,  Hengstenberg  says,  "  No  one  at  all  familiar  with  the 
literature  of  the  day,  needs  evidence  of  their  truth.  Instead  of 
doubting,  he  may  rather  wonder  tliat  an  abomination  advocated 
for  years  past,  should  now  first,  as  though  it  were  something  new, 

'  Kirchon-Zeitung,  p.  21. 


THE     LATEST    FORM    OF    INFIDELITY.  105 

be  thus  vehemently  assaulted,  and  that  the  charges  should  he 
directed  against  comparatively  few  and  unimportant  writers." 
This  latter  circumstance  he  adds,  however,  is  accounted  for,  as 
Leo  professed  to  confine  himself  to  the  productions  of  the  year 
preceding  the  publication  of  his  own  book. 

Leo's  first  charge  is  this  :  "  This  party  denies  the  existence  of 
a  personal  God.  They  understand  by  God,  an  unconscious 
power  which  pervades  all  persons,  and  which  arrives  to  self-con- 
sciousness only  in  the  personality  of  men.  That  is,  this  party 
teaches  Atheism  without  reserve.'^  With  regard  to  this  charge, 
Hengstenborg  remarks  :  "  Whoever  has  read  Strauss's  Life  of 
Jesus,  and  Vatke's  Biblical  Theology,  where  Pantheism,  which 
every  Christian  must  regard  as  only  one  form  of  Atheism,  is 
clearly  avowed,  cannot  ask  whether  the  party  in  general  hold 
these  doctrines,  but  simply  whether  the  particular  persons  men- 
tioned by  Leo,  belong,  as  to  this  point,  to  the  party.  About  this, 
who  can  doubt,  when  he  hears  Professor  Michelet  say,  beside 
many  other  things  of  like  import,  '  God  is  the  eternal  movement 
of  the  universal  principle,  constantly  manifesting  itself  in  individ- 
ual existences,  and  which  has  no  true  objectiv^e  existence  but  in 
these  individuals,  which  pass  away  again  into  the  infinite,'  [In 
other  words,  God  is  but  the  name  given  to  the  ceaseless  flow  of 
being.]  When  he  hears  him  denouncing  as  unworthy  of  the  name, 
'  the  theistical  Hegelians,  wlio  believe  in  a  personal  God,  in 
another  world  ?'" — P.  22.  "Professor  Vischor,"  adds  Hengsten- 
berg,  "is  so  far  from  being  ashamed  of  Pantheism,  that  he  glories 
in  his  shame,  and  represents  it  as  the  greatest  honor  of  his  friend 
Strauss,  that  he  has  'logically  carried  out  the  principle  of  the 
immanence  of  God  in  the  world.'  That  the  Professors  Gans 
and  Benary  agree  with  him  and  with  Strauss,  not  only  in  gen- 
eral, but  in  this  particular  point,  Michelet,  '  certain  of  their 
assent,'  has  openly  declared.  According  to  Dr.  Kiihne,  Hegel's 
God  '  is  not  Jehovah,'  ho  is,  '  the  ever  streaming  immanence  of 
spirit  in  matter.'  To  this  representation.  Dr.  Meyen  agrees,  and 
says,  '  I  make  no  secret,  that  I  belong  to  the  extreme  left  of 
Hegel's  school.  I  agree  with  Strauss  perfectly,  and  consider  him 
(seine  Tendenz)  as  in  perfect  harmony  with  Hegel.'  Another 
•writer,  the  anonymous  author  of  the  book  '  Leo  vor  Gericht,' 
ridicules  the  charge  of  Atheism  as  though  it  were  a  trifle.  He 
represents  the  public  as  saying  to  the  charge,  '  What  does  it 


106  THE    LATEST     FOKM    OF     INFIDELITY. 

mean  ?  Mr.  Professor  Leo  is  beyond  our  comprehension  :  Wodan, 
heathenism,  Hegel's  Grod,  Atheism  !  ha  !  ha  !  ha  V  " 

That  Tholuck  looks  on  the  doctrine  of  Strauss,  with  whom 
these  other  writers  profess  agreement,  and  who  is  an  avowed 
disciple  of  Hegel,  in  the  same  light,  is  clear  from  his  language  in 
his  Anzeiger,  for  May,  1836  :  "  Strauss,"  he  says,  "is  a  man  who 
knows  no  other  God  than  him  who,  in  the  human  race,  is  con- 
stantly becoming  man.  He  know^s  no  Christ  but  the  Jewish 
Rabbi,  who  made  his  confession  of  sin  to  John  the  Baptist ;  and 
no  heaven  but  that  which  speculative  philosophy  reveals  for  our 
enjoyment  on  the  little  planet  w^e  now  inhabit." 

Nothing,  however,  can  be  plainer  than  Strauss's  own  language : 
"As  man,  considered  as  a  mere  finite  spirit,  and  restricted  to  him- 
self, has  no  reality  ;  so  God,  considered  as  an  infinite  spirit, 
restricting  himself  to  his  infinity,  has  no  reality.  The  infinite 
spirit  has  reality  only  so  far  as  he  unites  himself  to  finite  spirits, 
(or  manifests  himself  in  them,)  and  the  finite  spirit  has  reality 
only  so  far  as  he  sinks  himself  in  the  infinite."'  How  does  this 
differ,  except  in  the  jargon  of  terms,  from  le  peuph-dieu,  of 
Anarcharsis  Clootz,  the  worthy  forerunner  of  these  modern 
Atheists  ?' 

"  If,"  says  another  -writer  in  Hengstenberg's  Journal,  "  man- 
kind is  the  incarnate  Godhead,  and,  beside  this  incarnate  divine 
spirit,  there  is  no  God,  then  we  have  a  most  perfect  Atheism, 
which  removes  us  from  Christianity  far  beyond  the  limits  of 
Mohammedanism,  the  heathenism  of  the  Indians  and  Chinese,  or 
of  our  Pagan  ancestors."  "  Hegel,  and  his  school,  maintain  that 
God  is  not  an  individual  person,  as  opposed  to  other  individuals, 
since  individuality  is  of  necessity  exclusive,  limited  and  finite. 
Since  God  is  a  trinity,  wherein  the  outwardness  of  number  is 
merged  in  substantial  unity,  so  God  is  an  universal  person  ; 
because  the  comprehension  of  individuals  in  unity  is  universality. 
This  is  what  is  meant  by  the  expression  :  '  God  is  personality 
itself.'  The  simple  question,  whether  they  believe  in  the  God 
whom  Christians  are  bound  to  honor  and  love,"  continues  this 
writer,  "  is  here  complicated  with  an  obscure  definition  of  the 

'  Loben  Jesu,  p.  730. 

2  "Jo  prd'chai  liautoment,"  said  Clootz  in  the  French  Convention,  "qu'il  n'y  a  pas 
d'autre  Dievi  que  la  nature,  d'autro  souverain  que  le  genre  humain,  le  peuplo-dieu.' 
Thiers:  Ilistoire  do  la  Revolution  Fran.,  Vol.  V.,  p.  197. 


THE    LATEST     FORM    OF    INFIDELITY.  107 

Trinity,  wliicli  no  man  can  think  removes  the  mystery  of  the  sub- 
ject, by  saying  Die  Ausserlichkeit  der  Zahl  zu  einer  substantiel- 
len  Einheit  umgebogen  ist  (the  outwardness  of  number  is  merged 
in  substantial  unity).  The  charge  of  denying  the  true  God 
remains  in  full  force,  this  justification  of  themselves  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding."  And  on  the  following  page,  he  adds, 
"  that  this  school,  to  be  honest,  when  asked,  '  Do  you  deny  God 
and  Christianity  T  ought  to  answer,  '  Certainly,  what  you  Chris- 
tians of  the  old  school  call  God  and  Christianity  ;  we  would 
fceach  you  a  better  doctrine."" 

We  have  seen  how  that  portion  of  this  dominant  school,  which 
retain  some  respect  for  themselves,  and  for  the  opinion  of  others? 
veil  tlieir  God-denying  doctrines  in  philosophical  formulas  unin- 
telligible to  the  common  peoj^le,  and  mysterious  and  mystical  to 
themselves.  Stripped  of  its  verbiage,  the  doctrine  is,  that  men 
are  God  ;  there  is  no  other  God  than  the  ever-flowing  race  of 
man  ;  or  that  the  universal  principle  arrives  to  self-consciousness 
only  in  the  human  race,  and  therefore  the  highest  state  of  God 
is  man.  The  extreme  left  of  the  school  trouble  themselves  but 
little  with  words  without  meaning.  They  speak  out  boldly,  so 
that  all  the  world  may  understand.  "  We  are  free,"  says  Heine, 
"  and  need  no  thundering  tyrant.  We  are  of  age,  and  need  no 
fatherly  care.  We  are  not  the  hand-work  of  any  great  mechanic. 
Theism  is  a  rehgion  for  slaves,  for  children,  for  Genevese,  for 
watch-makers." 

"  Leo,"  says  Hengstenberg,  "  charges  this  party  with  denying 
the  incarnation  of  God  in  Christ,  and  with  turning  the  gospel 
into  a  mythology.  If  the  previous  charge  is  substantiated,  this 
requires  no  special  proof  If  the  existence  of  God,  in  the  Christian 
sense  of  the  terms,  be  denied,  we  must  cease  to  speak  of  an 
incarnation  in  the  Christian  sense  of  the  word.  The  doctrine  of 
the  immanence  of  God  in  the  world,  says  Professor  Yischer, 
(Halle  Jahrbuch,  s.  1102,)  forbids- us  to  honor  'God  in  the  letter, 
or  in  single  events,  or  individuals.'  It  regards,  '  as  a  breach  in 
the  concatenation  of  the  universe,  that  an  individual  should  be 
the  Absolute.'  According  to  this  view,  there  is  no  other  incarna- 
tion than  that  which  Professor  Michelet,  in  harmony  with  the 
Chinese  philosophers,  teaches,  that  '  God  must  constantly  appear 
here  on  earth  in  a  form  which  affects  our  senses,  (als  sinnlicher,) 

'  Kirchen-Zeitung,  February,  1839. 


108  THE    LATEST     FORM     OF     INFIDELITY. 

though  constantly  changing  that  form  (als  ein  sich  aufgeheben- 
der  und  aufgeliohener),  and  in  this  statemeat,  if  I  mistake  not, 
the  whole  school  will  recognize  the  eternal  incarnation  of  God.' 
The  Absolute  attains  consciousness  in  a  series  of  individuals,  no 
one  of  which  fully  represents  him,  but  each  has  signihcance  only 
as  a  member  of  the  whole.  This  incarnation  of  God  is  eternal, 
but  all  individuals  are  perishing  and  transitory  ;  the  Absolute 
constantly  fashions  for  itself  new  individuals,  and  rejects  the 
former  as  so  ui  as  they  have  answered  their  end.  These  form  'the 
Golgotha  of  the  Absolute  Spirit ;'  they  surround,  like  bloodless 
ghosts,  the  throne  of  the  monster  that  devours  his  own  children ; 
that,  void  of  love,  strides  through  ages,  trampling  and  destroying 
all  that  lies  in  his  way."  Such  is  the  awful  language  in  which 
Hengstenberg  describes  the  God  of  the  Hegelians. 

The  incarnation  of  God,  then,  according  to  this  school,  did  not 
occur  in  Christ,  but  is  constantly  occurring  in  the  endless  succes- 
sion of  the  human  race.  Mankind  is  the  Christ  of  the  new 
system,  and  all  the  gospel  teaches  of  the  Son  of  God  is  true  only 
as  it  is  understood  of  mankind.  Strauss  teaches  this  doctrine 
with  a  clearness  very  unusual  in  a  philosopher.  "  The  key,"'  says 
he,  "  of  the  whole  doctrine  of  Christ,  is  that  the  predicates  which 
the  church  have  affirmed  of  Christ,  as  an  individual,  belong  to  an 
Idea,  to  a  real,  not  to  a  Kantian  unreal  idea.  In  an  individual, 
in  one  Godman,  the  attributes  and  functions  which  the  church 
attribute  to  Christ,  are  incompatible  and  contradictory  ;  in  the 
idea  of  the  race  they  all  unite.  Mankind  is  the  union  of  the  two 
natures,  the  incarnate  God,  tha  Infinite  revealed  in  the  Finite, 
and  the  Finite  conscious  of  its  infinity.  The  race  is  the  child  of 
the  visible  mother  and  of  the  invisible  Father,  of  the  Spirit,  and 
of  nature  ;  it  is  the  true  worker  of  miracles,  in  so  far  as  in  course 
of  its  history,  it  constantly  attains  more  complete  mastery  over 
nature,  which  sinks  into  the  powerless  material  of  human  activity. 
It  is  sinless,  so  far  as  the  course  of  its  development  is  blameless ; 
impurity  cleaves  only  to  the  individual,  but  in  the  race,  and  its 
history,  it  is  removed.  The  race  dies,  rises  again,  and  ascends  to 
heaven,  in  so  far  as  by  the  negation  of  its  natural  element 
(Natiirhchkeit)  a  higher  spiritual  life  is  produced,  and  as  by  the 
negation  of  its  finitude  as  a  personal,  national,  worldly  spirit,  its 
unity  with  the  infinite  spirit  of  heaven  is  manifested.  By  faith 
in  this  Christ,  is  man  justified  before   God  ;    that  is,   by  the 


THE    LATEST     FORBI    OF     INFIDELITY.  109 

awakening  the  idea  of  the  nature  of  man  in  him,  especially  as 
the  negation  of  the  natural  element,  which  is  itself  a  negation  of 
the  spirit,  and  thus  a  negation  of  a  negation,  is  the  only  way  to 
true  spiritual  life  for  man,  the  individual  becomes  a  partaker  of 
the  theanthropical  life  of  the  race.  This  alone  is  the  real  import 
of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  ;  that  it  appears  connected  with  the 
person  and  history  of  an  individual,  has  only  the  subjective 
ground,  that  his  personality  and  flite  were  the  occasion  of  awaken- 
ing this  general  truth  in  the  consciousness  of  men,  and  that  at 
that  period  the  culture  of  the  world,  and  indeed  the  culture  of 
the  mass  at  all  periods,  allowed  of  their  contemplating  the  Idea 
of  the  race,  only  in  the  concrete  form  of  an  individual."' 

Tholuck,  whose  charity  for  philosophical  aberrations  is  very  wide, 
remarks  on  this  passage,  "As  the  incarnation  of  Grod  occurred  not 
in  an  individual,  but  comes  to  pass  only  in  the  constant  progress  of 
the  race,  so  the  individual  as  a  mere  item  of  the  race,  has  fulfilled  his 
destiny  at  the  close  of  his  earthly  course,  and  the  race  alone  is  im- 
mortal. It  is  not  we  that  enter  a  future  world,  the  future  world  goes 
forward  in  this,  the  more  the  spirit  becomes  aware  of  its  infinitude, 
and  by  the  power  of  reason,  gains  the  mastery  over  nature.  This 
ideal  perfection  is  to  be  attained,  not  in  heaven,  but  in  the  per- 
fection of  our  political  and  social  relations.  This  system  there- 
fore comes  to  the  same  result  with  the  materialism  of  the 
Encyclopedists,  who  mourned  over  mankind  for  having  sacrificed 
the  real  pleasures  of  time  for  the  visionary  pleasures  of  eternity, 
and  the  protracted  enjoyments  of  life,  for  the  momentary  hap- 
piness of  a  peaceful  death.  It  agrees  moreover,  despite  of  its 
intellectual  pretensions,  with  the  wishes  of  the  materialistical 
spirit  of  the  age,  which  sets  as  the  highest  end  of  man,  not  the 
blessings  promised  by  the  church,  but  according  to  the  '  Young 
Germans,'  the  refined  pleasures  of  life,  and  according  to  politi- 
cians, the  perfection  of  the  State." 

It  is  strange  that  men  holding  such  views  should  trouble 
themselves  at  all  with  the  gospel.  As  this  system,  however,  has 
arisen  in  a  Christian  country,  there  was  but  one  of  two  things  to 
do,  either  to  say  that  real  Christianity  means  just  what  this 
system  teaches,  or  to  explode  the  whole  evangelical  history. 
Some  have  taken  the  one  course,  and  some  the  other,  while  some 

'  Strauss's  Leben  Jesu,  Th.  ii.  s.  734,  quoted  by  Tholuck,  in  his  Glaubwiirdigkeit, 
kc^  p.  19. 


110  THE    LATEST     FORM     OF    INFIDELITY. 

unite  both.  That  is,  they  reject  the  gospel  history  as  a  history  ; 
they  represent  it  as  a  mere  mythology  ;  but  as  the  ancient  phi- 
losophers made  the  mythology  of  the  Greeks  and  Komans  a 
series  of  allegories  containing  important  truths,  so  do  these 
modern  philosophers  represent  the  gospels  as  a  mere  collection 
of  fables,  destitute  in  almost  every  case  of  any  foundation  in  fact, 
but  still  expressive  of  the  hidden  mysteries  of  their  system.  It 
is  by  a  mytho-symbolical  interpretation  of  this  history  that  the 
truth  must  be  sought.  The  life  of  Jesus  by  Strauss  is  a  labor- 
ious compilation  of  all  the  critical  objections  against  the  New 
Testament  history,  which  he  first  thus  endeavored  to  overturn, 
and  then  to  account  for  and  explain  as  a  Christian  mythology. 
"  Had  this  book,"  says  Hengstenberg,  "  been  published  in  Eng- 
land, it  would  have  been  forgotten  in  a  couple  of  months.'"  In 
Germany  it  has  produced  a  sensation  almost  without  a  parallel. 
It  has  become  the  rallying  ground  of  all  the  enemies  of  Chris- 
tianity open  and  secret,  and  the  number  of  its  advocates  and 
secret  abettors  is  therefore  exceedingly  great.  The  author,  says 
Tholuck,  "  has  uttered  the  sentence  w^hich  so  few  dared  to  utter; 
'  The  evangelical  history  is  a  fable.'  He  has  uttered  it  at  a  time 
when  the  deniers  of  the  truth  were  filled  with  spleen  at  the 
prospect  of  a  constantly  increasing  faith  in  the  gospel.  With 
what  joy  then  must  this  hypocritical  and  timid  generation  hail  a 
leader  who  gives  himself  to  the  sweat  and  dust  of  the  battle, 
while  they  hide  behind  the  bushes,  and  rub  their  hands,  and 
smile  in  each  other's  faces."^ 

3.  Leo's  third  charge  against  this  party  is  that  they  deny  the 
immortality  of  the  soul.  "  This  point  also  needs  no  further 
proof,"  says  Hengstenberg,  "  since  the  former  have  been  proved. 
With  the  personality  of  God  falls  of  course  that  of  man,  wdiich  is 
the  necessary  condition  of  an  existence  hereafter.  To  a  Pan- 
theist, '  the  subject  which  would  assert  its  individual  personality, 
is  evil  itself  (Michelet.)  It  is  regarded  as  godless  even  to 
cherish  the  desire  of  immortality.  According  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  eternal  incarnation  of  God,  it  must  appear  an  intolerable 
assumption  for  an  individual  to  lay  claim  to  that  which  belongs 
only  to  the  race  ;  he  must  freely  and  gladly  cast  himself  beneath 
the  wheels  of  the  idol  car  that  he  may  make  room  for  other 
incarnations  of  the  Spirit,  better  adapated  to  the  advancing  age. 

'  Kirchen-Zeitung,  January  1,  1836,  p.  35.  "  Glaubwurdigkeit,  p.  34. 


THE  LATEST  FORM  OF  INFIDELITY.      HI 

The  proofs,  however,  of  this  particular  charge  are  peculiarly 
abundant.  Hegel  himself,  who  ought  not  to  be  represented  as  so 
different  from  the  Hegelingen,  since  the  difference  between  them 
is  merely  formal  and  not  essential,  involved  himself  in  the  logical 
denial  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  This  has  been  fully  proved 
with  regard  to  him  and  Dr.  Marheineke  in  a  previous  article  in 
this  journal  (that  is,  the  Kirchen-Zeitung).  It  has  also  been 
demonstrated  by  Weise  in  the  work :  Die  philosophische  Ge- 
heimlehre  von  der  Unsterblichkeit,  as  far  as  Hegel  is  concerned  ; 
and  with  Weise,  Becker  has  more  recently  signified  his  agree- 
ment. K  this  happens  in  the  green  tree,  what  will  become  of 
the  dry  ? 

"  Richter  came  out  with  such  a  violent  polemic  against  the 
doctrine  of  immortality,  that  the  party  had  to  disavow  him,  for 
fear  of  the  public  indignation.  When,  however,  they  thought  it 
could  be  done  unnoticed  or  without  danger,  they  acknowledged 
the  same  doctrine.  Michelet  endeavors  most  earnestly  to  free 
Hegel's  system  from  the  charge  of  countenancing  the  doctrine  of 
the  immortality  of  the  soul,  as  from  a  reproach.  He  speaks  out 
clear  and  plain  his  own  views  in  wc  rds  which,  according  to  him, 
Hegel  himself  had  spoken,  '  Thought  alone  is  eternal,  and  not 
the  body  and  what  is  connected  with  its  individuality,'  that  is, 
the  whole  personality,  which,  according  to  this  system,  depends 
entirely  on  the  body  (Leiblichkeit).  ••'•■  *  *  Euge  (Hall. 
Jahrb.  s.  1011)  ridicules  the  scruples  of  theologians  as  to  whether 
'Philosophy  can  make  out  the  immortality  of  the  human  soul; 
whether  philosophy  has  any  ethics  ;  whether  it  can  justify  the 
gross  doctrines  of  hell,  of  wailing,  and  gnashing  of  teeth,  &c.' 
'  Such  vulgar  craving,'  he  says,  '  is  beginning  to  mix  itself  with 
purely  philosophical  and  spiritual  concerns,  and  threatens  to 
merge  philosophy  in  its  troubled  element.  The  more  this  dog- 
matical confusion  arrogates  to  itself;  the  more  this  senseless 
justification  of  the  wretched  errors  of  orthodoxy  dishonors  the 
free  science  of  philosophy,  the  more  necessary  wdl  it  be  to  cast 
out  this  dung-heap  of  nonsense  to  the  common  mind  (in  das 
gemeine  Bewustseyn).'  Meyen  at  first  puts  on  the  air  as  though 
he  would  acknowledge  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul. 
*  The  Hegelians,'  he  says,  '  do  indeed  reject  the  sensual  concep- 
tions of  immortality,  but  they  admit  the  doctrine  as  presented  by 
Marheineke  in  his  Theology.'     The  dishonest  ambiguity  of  this 


112  THE    LATEST    FORM    OF    INFIDELITY. 

sentencG  will  not  escape  notice.  Dr.  Marheineke  denies  the  con- 
tinued personal  existence  of  the  soul  after  death,  and  attributes  the 
belief  of  such  a  doctrine  to  selfishness.  '  Whoever,'  continues 
Meyen,  '  is  so  conversant,  as  Hegel,  with  what  is  eternal  in  con- 
nection with  spirit,  must  admit  the  eternity  of  the  spirit.'  Here 
again  is  intentional  ambiguity.  The  question  concerning  the 
continued  personal  existence  of  the  soul  is  silently  changed  for 
the  question  about  the  eternity  of  the  spirit.  A  veil  is  thrown 
over  the  fact  that  Hegel,  while  he  admitted  the  latter,  denied 
the  former,  as  Michelet  and  others  have  sufficiently  shown. 
These  preliminary  remarks,  transparent  as  they  are,  were  only 
intended  to  prevent  his  being  quoted  in  proof  of  the  disbelief  of 
immortality  in  the  school  to  which  he  belongs.  He  immedi- 
ately comes  out  plainly  with  his  own  views  and  those  of  his 
party,  yet  so  as  still  to  leave  a  door  open  behind  him,  '  What 
though  a  Hegelian,'  says  he,  'did  not  .believe  in  the  immortality 
of  the  soul  in  a  Christian  sense — let  it  be  noticed  that  the  words 
are  here  so  placed,  that  the  uninformed  should  infer  that  the 
school,  as  a  whole,  and  its  above  mentioned  leaders,  do  believe  in 
immortality  in  a  Christian  sense — what  then  ?  If  I  resign  my- 
self to  this,  am  I  thereby  a  different  person,  or  is  the  world  for 
me  different  .^  I  would  seek  to  acknowledge  God  in  his  works 
as  before,  and  I  would  live  as  morally  as  ever.'  At  last,  however, 
it  becomes  too  hot  for  bim,  even  in  these  thin  clothes,  and  he 
casts  them  oif,  having  assumed  them  only  for  the  sake  of  his 
brothers  in  Hegel,  who  happen  to  be  in  office.  '  Grass/  says  he, 
'is  already  growing  on  the  grave  of  Daub,  is  he  therefore  dead  for 
his  friends  and  for  the  world  ?  his  M'orks,  and  hence  also  his  spirit, 
Hve.  Many  winter  storms  have-  already  swept  over  the  graves  of 
Hegel  and  of  Gcithe,  but  does  not  their  spirit  still  live  among  us  ? 
It  is,  as  Christ  said,  where  two  of  you  are  met  together,  there  am 
I  in  the  midst  of  you.'     Thus  each  continues  to  live  according  to 

'  To  this  passage  Hengstonborg  has  the  following  note.  "We  frequently  Djcet,  in 
the  writings  of  this  scliool.  with  similar  shameful  profanations  of  the  Scriptures, 
which  are  seldom  quoted  without  some  mutilation,  which  is  characteristic  of  the 
relation  of  tlie  party  to  the  word  of  God.  These  writers  delight  to  transfer  to  Hegel 
what  the  Scriptures  say  of  Clirist.  According  to  Bayrhoffer  (Hallo  Jahrb.  s.  343), 
Hogel '  is  the  absolute  centre,  around  which  the  present  revolves.'  His  first  disciples 
are  compared  with  the  apostles.  '  Hinrichs  is  the  rock  of  terminology,  the  strength 
and  tlie  support  of  the  school'  (Jahrb.  s.  6T2).  Leo,  who  has  left  the  parly,  is  corn- 
pared  with  Judas,  and  even  designated  as  '  the  fallen  angel  of  speculatiou  '  (Heg^I'a 


THE    LATEST     FORM     OF    INFIDELITY.  113 

his  words.  The  citizen  in  remembrance  of  his  family  ;  he  who 
has  distinguished  himself  in  the  kingdom  of  the  spirit,  still  lives 
in  that  kingdom,  and  hence  he  who  has  worked  for  eternity  is 
immortal.' " 

4.  "Leo,  finally,"  says  Hengstenberg,  "accuses  the  school  of 
wishing  to  jDass  themselves  for  Christians,  by  means  of  disguising 
their  ungodly  and  abominable  doctrines  under  a  repulsive  and 
unintelligible  phraseology.  This  is  a  heavy  charge.  Honesty 
and  candor  have  ever  been  the  ornament  of  our  national  char- 
acter. They  have  ever  been  regarded  as  the  innate  virtues  of  a 
German.  Whoever  undermines  them  is  a  disgrace  to  his  country. 
Yet  who  can  say  the  charge  is  not  well  founded  .^  Several  proofs 
of  its  truth  have  been  given  in  what  has  been  already  said.  A 
statement,  however,  by  Professor  Vischer,  in  his  character  of  Dr. 
Strauss  (Hall.  Jahrb.  s.  Ill),  is  worthy  of  special  attention. 
'  How  firm  his  (Strauss's)  conviction  as  to  the  main  point  even 
then  was,  is  shown  in  a  highly  interesting  correspondence  be- 
tween him  and  one  of  his  friends,  communicated  to  me  through 
the  kindness  of  the  latter,  and  which  now  lies  before  me.  It  is 
touching  to  observe  with  what  cheerful  confidence  in  the  saving 
power  of  the  truth,  he  endeavors  to  remove  the  anxiety  and 
scruples  of  his  friend,  who  felt  pained  by  the  chasm  which  his 
scientific  convictions  had  made  between  him  and  his  congrega- 
tion ;  how  clearly  he  shows  that  it  is  no  dishonesty  to  speak  the 
language   of  the   imagination    (der   Vorstellung),  to  introduce 

doctrine  concerning  the  State).  The  school  as  a  whole,  is  a  copy  of  the  church  of 
Christ.  According  to  Bayrhoffer,  (Hegelinge  s.  29)  it  should  no  longer  be  called  a 
school,  but  'the  congregation  of  the  idea,'  or  'the  spiritual  kingdom  of  the  idea.' 
Ruge  applies  the  passage,  '  The  kingdom  of  heaven  suffereth  violence,  and  the  violent 
take  it  by  force,'  to  the  popular  exhibition  of  Hegel's  philosophy  by  Erdmann.  The 
most  shameful  of  these  perversions,  however,  relate  to  the  passages  concerning  the 
sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  "Whoever  comes  out  boldly  against  the  spirit  of  Hegel, 
or  of  his  disciples,  or  of  the  time,  or  of  hell,  is  declared  guilty  of  the  sin  against  the 
Holy  Spirit  or  rather  the  Spirit,  (for  the  word  holy  they  commonly  leave  out,  it 
savors  too  much  of  morality ;  when  it  is  inserted,  it  is  only  for  the  sake  of  the  allu- 
sion). 'The  writings,' says  Mey en,  'in  which  Leo  has  presented  his  new  opinions, 
blaspheme  the  Spu-it — hence  God  himself.'  To  which  we  answer :  Yes,  your  spirit 
and  your  God  we  wish  to  blaspheme,  for  blasphemy  of  him  is  the  praise  of  the  God 
of  heaven  and  of  his  Spirit.  *  *  *  "  -^q  q^lto.  hardly  express  the  admiration 
which  we  feel  for  Hengstenberg.  No  one  who  does  not  know  how  much  alone  and 
aloft  he  stands,  and  how  much  he  has  had  to  endure  for  his  uncompromising  opposi- 
tion to  the  enemies  of  God  and  religion,  can  appreciate  the  noble  firmness  and  vigor 
of  his  character. 


114  THE    LATEST    FORM    OF    INFIDELITY. 

unobserved  into  the  figures  which  alone  float  before  the  believer, 
the  thoughts  of  the  kuower  (des  Wissenden).'  Here  the  zeal  and 
skill  with  which  Dr.  Strauss  teaches  his  friend  how  to  lie,  and 
instructs  hira  how  to  steal  from  the  congregation  what  they 
regard  as  the  most  precious  treasure  (and  what,  for  that  very- 
reason,  it  will  be  found  impossible  to  rob  them  of),  are  represent- 
ed as  a  great  merit,  and  the  reader  is  exhorted  to  allow  himself 
to  be  affected  by  this  proof  of  his  amiableness,  and  in  the  warmth 
of  his  sympathy  to  press  his  hand,  and  exclaim,  0  how  good  you 
are  !  We,  however,  cannot  regard  such  conduct  without  the 
deepest  moral  abhorrence.  The  school  endeavor  to  jutsify  this 
course,  from  the  relation  which  Hegel  has  established  between 
conception  and  thought  (Vortstellung'  und  Begriff).  But  this 
justification  is  completely  worthless.  It  is  not  one  whit  better 
than  the  theories  by  which  the  robbers  in  Spain  justify  their 
vocation.  Evil  is  not  better,  but  on  the  contrary  worse,  and  the 
more  to  be  condemned  when  it  is  brought  in  formam  artis.  The 
relation  assumed  by  Hegel  between  conception  and  thought, 
would  allow  at  most  of  a  formal  accommodation.  That  yours  is 
of  that  nature  you  cannot  assert.  *  *  *  If  the  difference 
between  your  thought  (Begriff)  and  our  conception  (Vorstel- 
lung)  is  merely  formal,  why  do  you  rave  with  such  hatred  against 
us  ?  Why  do  you  say  that  '  pietism  is  a  disease  which  corrupts 
the  very  life  of  the  spirit  ?'  (Vischer,  p.  526.)  How  can  the 
question  be  about  a  mere  formal  difference  ?  Our  Conception 
and  your  Thought  are  just  as  far  apart  as  heaven  and  hell.  We 
confess  God  the  Father  the  maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  and 
Jesus  Christ  his  only  begotten  Son  ;  you  deny  both  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  and  confess  Antichrist,  yea,  would  yourselves  be  his 
members.         *         ■'•'•■         ^'•"         " 

Hengstenberg  afterwards  remarks  that  it  is  almost  incredible 

'  This  translation  of  the  words  Vorstellung  and  Begriff  is  no  doubt  inadequate. 
The  technical  terms  of  a  system  do  not  admit  of  adequate  translation,  because  the 
sense  assigned  to  them  in  the  system  is  arbitrary.  The  only  method  that  can  be  pur- 
sued in  such  cases,  is  to  give  their  nearest  corresponding  words  the  same  arbitrary 
signification.  Hegel  calls  that  form  of  truth  which  is  the  object  of  absolute  knowl- 
edge, a  pure  thought,  Begriff;  and  that  form  in  which  it  is  the  object  of  faith  or 
feeling,  Vorstellung.  Or,  the  exercises  of  feeling,  desire,  will,  &c.,  considered  as 
objects  of  attention,  are  Voretellungen ;  these  it  is  the  office  of  philosophy,  by  the  pro- 
cess of  thinking,  to  turn  into  thoughts,  Begriffe.  And  hence  he  says,  Vorslellungen 
can  be  regarded  as  the  metaphors  of  Begriffe.     See  his  Encyklopadie,  p.  5. 


THE    LATEST     FORM     OF     INFIDELITY.  115 

to  what  an  extent  this  deception  and  hypocrisy  is  carried.  This 
course  of  conduct,  however,  though  veiy  characteristic  of  this 
modern  school,  is  an  old  device.  The  Rationalists,  to  go  no 
further  back,  were  accustomed  to  speak  of  the  Lamb  of  Grod,  of 
the  blood  of  Christ,  &c.,  with  the  avowed  purpose  that  the 
people  should  attach  to  these  expressions  their  scriptural  sense, 
while  they  employed  them  in  a  very  different  one.  How  strange 
too  it  sounds  to  hear  this  Alumnus  of  Cambridge  speaking  of 
"  the  divine  character  of  Christ,"  of  "  the  cross  of  Christ  as  the 
hope  of  the  world"  and  "  of  the  anointing  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
This  community,  we  trust,  is  not  prepared  to  have  such  solemn 
words  made  playthings  of.  Let  philosophers  and  errorists,  who 
deny  the  truths  of  the  Bible,  find  words  for  themselves,  and  not 
profane  the  words  of  Grod  by  making  them  a  vehicle  for  the 
denial  of  his  truth.  One  of  the  most  monstrous  examples  of  this 
perversion  of  scriptural  language  occurs  in  a  passage  quoted 
above  from  Strauss.  He  too  will  have  it  that  a  man  is  justified 
by  faith  in  Christ,  because  as  God  is  incarnate  in  the  race,  the 
race  is  Christ,  and  by  faith  in  the  race,  or  by  coming  to  a  proper 
apprehension  of  his  own  nature,  man  reaches  his  highest  state  of 
perfection.  Mr.  Bancroft  in  his  history  talks  of  men  being  justi- 
fied by  faith,  meaning  thereby,  that  they  are  justified  by  their 
principles.  And  the  Oxford  divines  teach  that  we  are  justified 
by  faith,  since  the  thirty-nine  articles  say  so,  but  then  it  is  by  the 
faith  of  the  church.' 

"  With  this  last  charge,  Leo,"  says  Hengstenberg,  "  entered 
upon  the  department  of  morals  ;  and  we  could  wish  that  he  had 
dwelt  longer  on  this  part  of  the  subject.     It  would  then  have 

'  It  should  be  here  stated  tliat  Dr.  Strauss,  at  the  close  of  his  Life  of  Jesus,  as  first 
printed,  had  freely  admitted  the  incompatibility  of  his  views  with  the  exercise  of  the 
ministry  in  the  Christian  church.  This  admission  in  the  last  edition,  he  has  suppressed ; 
and  in  his  letter  to  the  authorities  of  Zurich  when  appointed  a  professor  of  the- 
ology in  the  University  of  that  city,  he  says,  he  should  not  consider  it  a  difiScult 
matter  to  quiet  the  apprehensions  of  those  who  feared  that  he  would  labor  to  over- 
throw the  Christian  religion,  that  he  would  endeavor  to  sustain  "  the  fundamental 
truths  of  Christianity,"  and  only  try  to  free  it  "from  human  additions."  When  it  is 
considered  that  he  regards  as  human  additions  almost  every  thing  that  the  people  of 
Zurich  hold  to  be  fundamental  truths,  there  can  be  but  one  opinion  of  the  dishonesty 
of  this  statement.  The  reputation  for  candor  which  he  had  gained  by  his  first  admission, 
has  been  lost  entirely  by  these  subsequent  proceedings.  Our  readers  are  aware  that  the 
attempt  to  foice  Strauss  on  the  people  as  a  professor  led  to  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
revolutions  of  our  times.     The  people  rose  en  mmse  and  overthrew  the  government. 


116  THE     LATEST     FOKM     OF     INFIDELITY. 

been  shown,  liow  this  party  are  laboring  to  destroy  all  that 
Eationalism  has  left  of  religion  and  morality.  What  their  ethics 
are,  may  be  readily  inferred  from  their  religion.  Where  there  is 
no  personal  God,  there  is  no  law,  which  men  need  fear  to  violate, 
as  the  expression  of  his  will.  If  the  distinction  between  God 
and  man  is  removed,  if  man  is  set  in  the  place  of  God,  then 
nothing  is  more  natural  than  that  men  should  without  reserve, 
and  upon  principle,  give  themselves  up  to  all  their  inclinations 
and  lusts.  To  suppress  these  desires,  is  to  hinder  the  develop- 
ment of  God  ;  if  they  do  not  become  God  as  developed,  they  do 
become  the  nascent  God  ;  if  not  good  in  themselves,  they  are 
relatively  good,  as  transition-points  in  the  progress  of  develop- 
ment. It  is  not  sin,  that  is  sinful ;  but  only  impenitence,  that 
is,  cleaving  to  the  relative  good,  which  is  vulgarly  called  evil,  as 
though  it  were  the  absolute  good.  These  painful  results  of  the 
doctrine  of  this  school,  are  everywhere,  with  the  most  logical  con- 
sequence, avowed  and  brought  to  light.  Ruge,  in  a  passage 
already  quoted,  attributes  the  question,  whether  philosophy  has 
any  ethics,  to  'vulgar  craving'  (gemeinen  Bediirftigkeit),  as 
much  as  the  question,  whether  it  can  vindicate  the  gross  doctrine 
of  hell,  &c.;  and  insists  that  this  whole  'dung-heap  should  be 
cast  out  into  the  mire  of  the  common  mind.'  In  connection  with 
Leo,  and  the  editor  (Hengstenberg  himself),  Menzel  is  desig- 
nated as  'the  incarnation  of  protestant  Jesuitism  (Meyen.  page  5), 
because  he  has  appeared  in  defence  of  morality,  now  completely 
antiquated,  against  the  young  Germany.  On  every  side,  efforts 
are  made  to  represent  him,  before  the  whole  nation,  as  a  marked 
man,  on  account  of  his  conflict  with  that  whicli  the  spirit  of  the 
pit  in  our  day  says  to  the  common  man.  '  Upon  Wolfgang 
Menzel,'  says  Meyen,  'judgment  is  already  executed  ;  he  lies  like 
a  scurvy  old  dog  on  the  foul  straw  which  Herr  von  Cotta  has  in 
compassion  left  him,  and  can  seldom  muster  courage  to  yelp ;' 
that  all  is  over  with  his  pitiful  morality,  which  has  gone  to  its 
rest.'  The  principles  of  the  '  Young  Germany'  have  been  ad- 
vanced in  the  Literary  Magazine  of  Berhn,  with  shameless 
eflfrontery,   and    the    infamous    advocates    of    those    principles 

'  Wolfgang  Menzel  was  the  editor  of  a  periodical,  called  the  Morgen-Blatt,  belong- 
ing to  Von  Cotta,  one  of  tho  principal  booksellers  in  Germany.  In  that  journal 
Menzel  attacked,  with  great  manliness  and  eflect,  the  libertine  principles  of  Heine, 
Gutzkow,  and  other  writers  of  the  extreme  left  of  the  pantheistic  school. 


THE    LATEST    FORM    OF     INFIDELITY.  117 

defended,  and  the  sottish  prudery  of  '  the  gray  heads  of  the  age/ 
who  were  disgusted  at  their  song  :  '  We  lead  a  merry  life/  has 
been  turned  into  ridicale."  Hengstenberg  then  introduces  the 
passage  from  Professor  Vischer,  quoted  on  a  previous  page,  in 
which,  while  he  condemns  these  young  Germans  as  unworthy 
prophets,  he  defends  their  principles. 

This  pantheistic  school,  therefore,  is  as  subversive  of  all  moral- 
ity, as  it  is  of  all  religion.  It  does  not  admit  the  idea  of  sin.  As 
there  is  no  God,  there  is  no  law,  and  no  transgression.  Every 
thing  actual,  is  necessary.  The  progress  of  the  race,  the  ever 
nascent  God,  goes  on  by  eternal  undeviating  laws,  and  all  that 
occurs,  in  fact,  is  the  action  of  the  only  God  of  which  this  sys- 
tem knows,'  We  do  not  think  it  right  to  stain  our  pages  with 
the  indecent  ravings  of  those  writers  who,  availing  themselves  of 
the  principles  of  the  decent  portion  of  the  school,  have  applied 
them  to  the  service  of  sin.  It  is  enough  to  show  the  nature  of 
the  system,  that  the  Pantheist  "does  not  believe  in  the  con- 
tinued existence  of  the  individual,  in  the  reality  of  his  freedom, 
in  the  deadly  nature  of  sin,  and  its  opposition  to  God.  Individ- 
uals are  to  him  but  the  phantasmagoria  of  the  spirit.  Liberty  is 
but  the  subtle  moment  of  determination.  Sin  is  what  a  man, 
with  his  measure  of  knowledge  and  power,  cannot  avoid  :  remorse 
is,  therefore,  a  forbidden  emotion  in  his  system."^ 

The  most  offensive  aspect  of  the  whole  system  is,  that  in  deify- 
ing men,  it  deifies  the  worst  passions  of  our  nature.  "  This," 
says  a  writer  in  Hengstenberg's  journal,  "is  the  true,  positive 
blasphemy  of  God — this  veiled  blasphemy — this  diabolism  of  the 
deceitful  angel  of  light — this  speaking  of  reckless  words,  with 
which  the  Man  of  Sin  sets  himself  in  the  temple  of  God,  showing 
himself  that  he  is  God.  The  Atheist  cannot  blaspheme  with 
such  power  as  this  ;  his  blasjjhemy  is  negative  ;  he  simply  says 
there  is  no  God.  It  is  only  out  of  Pantheism  that  a  blasphemy 
can  proceed,  so  wild,  of  such  inspired  mockery,  so  devoutly  god- 
less, so  desperate  in  its  love  of  the  world  ;  a  blasphemy  at  once 
so  seductive,  and  so  offensive,  that  it  may  well  call  for  the 
destruction  of  the  world.'" 

'  Die  Geschiclite  is  der  werdende  Gott,  und  dies  "Werden  Gottes  geschicht  naoh 
ewigeu  Gesetzen;  nirgends  ein  Sprung,  uberal  nur  Entwickelung.  Hengstenberg, 
in  the  Kirchen-Zeitung,  January,  1836. 

2  Kirchen-Zeitung,  1836,  p.  671.  3  Kirchen-Zeitung,  1836,  p.  571. 


118  THE     LATEST     FORM     OF     INFIDELITY. 

As  an  illustration,  at  once,  of  tlie  confidence  and  character  of 
these  modern  Pantheists,  we  shall  give  one  more  passage  from 
Strauss,  the  most  prominent  and,  perhaps,  most  respected  writer 
of  the  school :  "  This  disposition  is  not  a  secret  of  the  philoso- 
phers only  ;  as  an  obscure  instinct,  it  has  become  the  universal 
spu'it  of  the  age.  It  is  acknowledged,  that  we  no  longer  know 
how  to  build  churches.  But  on  the  other  hand,  from  an  impulse 
which,  as  a  miasma,  has  spread,  especially  over  all  Germany, 
monuments  to  great  men  and  lofty  spirits  arise  on  every  side. 
There  is  much  that  is  ridiculous  mixed  with  this  feeling  ;  but  it 
has  its  serious  aspect,  and  is  assuredly  a  sign  of  the  times.  The 
Evangelical  Church  Journal  (Hengstenberg's)  has  taken  the  right 
view  of  the  matter,  when  it  pronounces  accursed,  as  a  new 
idolatry,  the  honor  paid  to  the  man  on  a  pillar  in  the  Place  Veu- 
dome,  and  to  him  of  the  Weimar  Olympus.  In  fact,  they  are 
Gods,  before  whom  the  God  of  the  Church  Journal  may  well 
tremble  ;  or,  in  other  words,  a  heathenism  which  endangers  its 
Christianity.  If  Heine  has  compared  the  accounts  of  O'Meara, 
Antommarchi,  and  Las  Cases,  with  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke, 
will  not  some  one  soon  discover  in  Bettina's  letters,'  a  new  gos- 
pel of  John  .^  A  new  Paganism,  or  it  may  be  a  new  Catholicism, 
has  come  over  Protestant  Germany.  Men  are  no  longer  satisfied 
with  one  incarnation  of  God  ;  they  desire,  after  the  manner  of  the 
Indians,  a  series  of  repeated  avatars.  They  wish  to  surround  the 
solitary  Jesus  with  a  new  circle  of  saints,  only  these  must  not  be 
taken  from  the  church  alone  ;  but,  as  in  the  private  chapel  of 
the  Emperor  Alexander  Severus,  the  statue  of  Orpheus  stood 
beside  those  of  Christ  and  of  Abraham,  so  the  tendency  of  the 
age  is  to  honor  the  revelation  of  God  in  all  the  spirits  which  have 
wrought,  with  life  and  creative  power,  on  mankind.  The  only 
worship — we  may  deplore  it,  or  we  may  praise  it,  deny  it  we 
cannot — the  only  worship  which  remains  for  the  cultivated 
classes  of  this  age,  from  the  rehgious  declension  of  the  last,  is  the 
worship  of  genius.'" 

'  An  enthusiastic  girl,  who  wrote  a  series  of  letters  to  Gothe,  filled  with  a  raving 
Platonic  love. 

''  Vergangliches  und  Bleibendes  in  Christenthum.  Selbst-gesprache  Yon  Dr. 
Strauss.  In  Zeitsohrift ;  Der  Freihafen,  Gallerio  von  Unterhaltungsbildern  aus  den 
Kreisen  der  Literatur,  Gesselschaft  und  Wissenschaft.  Mit  Boitragen  von  Carus, 
Gans,  Konig,  Mises,  Baruhagon  von  Ense,  dem  Fiirsten  von  Puckler,  Rosenkrauz, 


THE    LATEST     FORM     OF     INFIDELITY.  119 

Such^  then,  is  this  Latest  Form  of  Infidelity.  It  knows  no 
intelligent  or  conscious  God  but  man  ;  it  admits  no  incarnation, 
but  the  eternal  incarnation  of  the  universal  spirit  in  the  human 
race  ;  the  personality  of  men  ceases  with  their  present  existence, 
they  are  but  momentaiy  manifestations  of  the  infinite  and  un- 
ending ;  there  is  neither  sin  nor  holiness  ;  neither  heaven  nor 
hell.  Such  are  the  results  to  which  the  proud  philosophy  of  the 
nineteenth  century  has  brought  its  followers.  We  have  not 
drawn  this  picture.  We  have  purposely  presented  it  as  drawn 
by  men  with  regard  to  whose  opportunities  and  competency 
there  can  be  no  room  for  cavil.  It  might  be  supj)osed,  that  a 
system  so  shocking  as  this,  which  destroys  all  religion  and 
all  morality,  could  be  adopted  by  none  but  the  insane  or  the 
abandoned  ;  that  it  might  be  left  as  St.  Simonianism,  Owenism, 
or  Mormonism,  to  die  of  its  own  viciousness.  This  supposition 
however,  overlooks  the  real  nature  of  the  system.  We  have  pre- 
sented it  in  its  offensive  nakedness.  It  is  not  thus  that  it 
addresses  itself  to  the  uninitiated  or  timid.  What  is  more 
offensive  than  Eomanism,  when  stripped  of  its  disguises,  yet 
what  more  seductive  in  its  bearing,  for  the  vast  majority  of  men  ? 
There  is  everything  to  facilitate  the  progress  of  this  new  philoso- 
phy. It  has  a  side  for  all  classes  of  men.  For  the  contemplative 
and  the  sentimentally  devout,  it  has  its  mysticism,  its  vague- 
ness, its  vastness.  It  allows  them  lo  call  wonder,  a  sense  of  the 
sublime  or  of  the  beautiful,  religion.  For  the  poet,  too,  it  has 
its  enchantments,  as  it  gives  consciousness  and  life  to  everything, 
and  makes  all  things  expressive  of  one  infinite,  endless  mind. 
For  the  proud,  no  Circe  ever  mingled  half  so  intoxicating  a  cup. 
Ye  shall  be  as  God,  said  the  archtempter  of  our  race  :  ye  are 
God,  is  what  he  now  whispers  into  willing  ears.  For  the  vain 
and  frivolous,  it  has  charms  scarcely  to  be  resisted.  It  gives 
them  easy  greatness.  They  have  only  to  talk  of  the  I,  and  the 
not  I  (or,  as  they  prefer  to  have  it,  the  me  and  the  not  me),  and 
they  are  beyond  the  depth  of  all  ordinary  men.  And  even  then, 
they  are  according  to  the  system,  far  greater  than  they  can  pos- 
sibly think  themselves  to  be.     For  the  sensual,  it  is  a  perfect 

Strauss,  Theodor  Mundt,  Kiihne  u.  A.  Drittes  Heft.  The  names  of  the  contributors 
to  this  Journal,  may  give  some  idea  of  its  character.  Here  we  have  Gans,  Rosen- 
kranz,  Strauss,  prominent  Hegelian  philosophers  or  theologians,  and  the  libertine 
prince  of  Piickler. 


120  THE    LATEST    FORM    OF     INFIDELITY. 

heaven.  It  legitimates  and  dignifies  all  enjoyments.  It  makes 
self-indulgence  religion.  It  forbids  all  remorse  and  all  fear. 
That  a  system  so  manifold  as  this,  which  has  a  chamber  of 
imagery  for  every  imagination,  should  find  advocates  and  friends 
on  every  hand,  is  not  a  matter  of  surprise.  There  is  still  another 
circumstance  which  must  be  taken  into  consideration  in  account- 
ing for  the  rapid  progress  of  this  new  philosophy,  and  in  specu- 
lating on  its  prospects.  It  has,  in  some  of  its  principles,  a 
certain  resemblance  to  the  truth.  The  God  of  the  Bible  is  not 
the  God  of  the  Deist,  or  off  the  Eationalist,  or  of  the  worldling,  a 
God  afar  off,  who  has  no  oversight  or  direction  of  his  creatures. 
The  world  is  not  a  machine  wound  up  and  left  to  itself.  The 
wonders  of  vegetable  and  animal  life  are  not  the  result  of  the 
properties  of  matter  acting  blindly  and  without  guidance.  The 
God  of  the  Bible  is  an  everywhere-present,  and  ever-active  God, 
in  whom  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being  ;  it  is  his  Spirit 
that  causes  the  grass  to  grow  ;  it  is  he  that  fashions  the  curious 
mechanism  of  our  bodies,  who  numbers  the  hairs  of  our  heads, 
and  directs  all  our  goings.  All  the  changes  in  nature  are  pro- 
duced by  his  power,  so  that  everything  we  see,  is  in  truth  a 
manifestation  of  God.  But  then  the  Bible  does  not  merge  God 
in  the  world  or  the  world  in  God.  Though  everywhere  present 
in  the  world,  God  is  not  the  world ;  but  a  Being  of  infinite  intel- 
ligence, power,  excellence,  and  blessedness,  guiding  and  control- 
ling his  creatures,  whose  acts  and  consciousness  are  their  own 
and  not  his.  The -chasm  which  divides  the  pantheistic  from  the 
scriptural  view  of  God,  is  bottomless,  and  the  difference  in  the 
effects  of  the  two  views  is  infinite ;  it  is  all  the  difference  between 
infinite  good  and  infinite  evil.  If  there  is  anything  impressed 
clearly  on  the  Bible,  it  is  the  personality  of  God  ;  it  is  the  ease 
and  confidence  with  which  his  people  can  say  Thou,  in  calling  on 
his  name  ;  it  is  that  he  ever  says  I  of  himself,  and  you,  when 
addressing  his  creatures. 

It  is  doubtless  in  a  good  degree  owing  to  the  deceptive  show 
of  truth  in  this  new  system — to  its  pretending  to  bring  back,  if 
we  may  reverently  so  speak,  God  to  the  world  from  which  Deists 
and  Rationalists  had  so  long  banished  him,  that  we  are  to 
attribute  the  hold  which  it  has  taken  of  many  of  the  better 
class  of  minds  ;  and  it  is  to  this  that  it  owes  its  most  alarming 
aspect ;   since  those  errors  are  always  the  most  dangerous  which 


THE    LATEST    FOKM    OF    INFIDELITY.  121 

can  put  on  the  nearest  resemblance  to  truth.  A  conflict,  there- 
fore, is  anticipated  by  the  Christians  of  Germany  with  this  new 
form  of  infideHty,  far  more  lasting  and  deadly  than  any  that  has 
yet  afflicted  the  church  in  that  country.  If  Rationalism,  so 
unattractive,  so  lifeless,  made  such  inroads  upon  the  church, 
"  what,"  say  they,  "  may  be  expected  from  Pantheism,  a  system 
so  full  of  life,  of  feeling,  oi  mysticism,  of  poetry,  whose  disciples 
can,  with  a  deceptive  show,  boast  that  they  are  religious,  that 
they  are  introducing  a  new,  beautiful,  and  universal  religion,  and 
give  themselves  out  as  a  new  sort  of  Christians  ;"  nay,  who  pre- 
tend at  times  to  be  real  Christians,  who  say  they  believe  in  the 
Trinity,  in  the  incarnation,  redemption,  resurrection,  and  all 
other  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  that  is,  they  express  some  philo- 
sophical enigma  under  these  terms  ;  or  at  times  speak  of  Chris- 
tianity with  affected  respect,  as  good  for  the  people  in  their 
present  state,  professing  with  Cousin  that  "philosophy  is  patient ; 
*  *  *  happy  in  seeing  the  great  bulk  of  manldnd  in  the 
arms  of  Christianity,  she  offers,  with  modest  kindness,  to  assist 
her  in  ascending  to  a  yet  loftier  elevation."' 

Strange  therefore  as  it  may  seem,  when  we  look  at  this  system 
in  its  true  character,  it  undoubtedly  has  already  prevailed  to  a 
great  extent  in  Germany ;  and  is  making  some  progress  in 
France,  England,  and  our  own  country.  Its  true  nature  is  dis- 
guised in  obscure  philosophical  language,  which  many  use  with- 
out understanding,  until  it  comes  at  last  to  the  expression  of 
their  real  opinions.  We  have  evidence  enough  that  this  panthe- 
istic philosophy  has  set  its  cloven  foot  in  America.  First  we  had 
a  set  of  young  men  captivated  by  the  genius  and  mysticism  of 
Coleridge,  republishing  works  through  which  were  scattered 
intimations  more  or  less  plain  of  the  denial  of  a  personal  God. 
This  was  the  first  step.  In  the  writings  of  Coleridge  the  general 
tone  and  impression  was  theistical.  He  was  an  Englishman  ;  he 
had  received  too  many  of  his  modes  of  thinking  and  of  expression 
from  the  Bible,  to  allow  of  his  being  a  Pantheist  except  when 
musing.  Next  we  had  the  writings  of  Cousin,  a  man  of  a  differ- 
ent cast,  with  none  of  Coleridge's  solemnity  or  reverence.  A 
Frenchman,  on  whose  mind  the  Bible  had  left  no  strong  impress. 
Vain  and  presumptuous,  and  yet  timid  ;  intimating  more  than 
he  durst  utter.  As  he  has  given  the  world  nothing  in  the  form 
'  Cousin's  Introduction  to  Hist,  of  Phil.,  p.  57. 


122  THE     LATEST     FORM     OF     INFIDELITY. 

of  a  system,  it  is  only  by  these  occasional  intimations,  that  his 
readers  can  judge  how  far  he  adopts  the  ideas  of  the  German 
school,  whence  all  his  opinions  are  borrowed.  These  intimations, 
however,  are  sufficiently  frequent  and  sufficiently  clear  to  make 
it  plain  that  he  is  a  denier  of  God  and  of  the  gospel.  This  has 
been  clearly  proved  in  the  article  in  this  Eeview  already  referred 
to.'  He  uses  almost  the  very  language  of  the  Hegelians  in 
expressing  his  views  of  the  nature  of  God.  "  God  exists  as  an 
idea,"  say  the  Hegelians  ;'  "these  ideas,"  i.  e.,  of  the  infinite, 
finite,  and  the  relation  between  them,  "  are  God  himself,"  says 
Cousin."  According  to  the  Hegelians,  God  arrives  at  conscious- 
ness in  man  ;  and  so  Cousin  teaches  "  God  returns  to  himself  in 
the  consciousness  of  man."  The  German  school  teaches  that 
everything  that  exists  is  God  in  a  certain  stage  of  development  ; 
so  also  Cousin,  "  God  is  space  and  number,  essence  and  life, 
indivisibility  and  totality,  principle,  end,  and  centre,  at  the 
summit  of  being  and  at  its  lowest  degree,  infinite  and  finite 
together,  triple  in  a  word,  that  is  to  say,  at  the  same  time  God, 
nature,  and  humanity.  In  fact,  if  God  is  not  everything  he  is 
nothing."'  Surely  there  can  be  but  one  opinion  among  Chris- 
tians, about  a  system  which  admits  of  no  God  but  the  universe, 
which  allows  no  intelligence  or  consciousness  to  the  infinite 
Spirit,  but  that  to  which  he  attains  in  the  human  soul,  which 
makes  man  the  highest  state  of  God.  And  we  should  think  there 
could  be,  among  the  sane,  but  one  opinion  of  the  men  who, 
dressed  in  gowns  and  bands,  and  ministering  at  God's  altars,  are 
endeavoring  to  introduce  these  blasphemous  doctrines  into  our 
schools,  colleges,  and  churches.  "Ancient  chronicles  relate," 
says  Leo,  "  there  were  watchtowers  and  castles  for  which  no 
firm  foundation  could  be  obtained,  until  (by  the  direction  of  the 
practitioners  of  the  black  art),  a  child  was  built  up  in  the  walls. 
They  made  a  little  chamber  in  the  foundation,  placed  within  it 
a  table  with  sugar  and  playthings,  and  while  the  poor,  uncon- 
scious little  victim  was  rejoicing  over  his  toys,  the  grim  masons 
built  up  the  wall.  This  is  a  fable  ;  or,  if  true,  belongs  to  a 
pagan  age,  and  every  nerve  within  us  trembles,  when  we  think 
of  this  abomination  of  heathenism.  But  are  not  those,  who  cut 
the  people  loose  from  the  more  than  thousand  years  old  founda- 

'  Princeton  Review,  January,  1839.  2  Marheineke's  Dogmatik,  §  174. 

3  Elements  of  Ps3'chology,  p.  400.  "  Ibid.,  p.  399. 


THE     LATEST     FOKM     OF     INFIDELITY.  123 

tion  of  their  morality  and  faith,  by  teaching  the  rising  generation 
that  there  is  no  personal  God  ;  that  the  history  of  his  only  begot- 
ten Son  is  a  cunningly  devised  fable,  which  does  indeed,  if 
properly  understood,  give  a  good  philosophical  sense  ;  that  all 
subjective  consciousness  and  feeling  end  with  death  ;  that  the 
greatest  abominations  that  ever  occurred  were  necessary,  and  thus 
reasonable,  and  a  conscious  and  willful  opposition  to  God  is  alone 
evil ;  are  not  these  the  most  cruel  of  masons,  who  immure  the 
children  of  Germany  in  the  walls  of  the  tower  of  heathen  ideas, 
in  the  bastions  and  watchtowers  of  the  devil,  enticing  them 
within  with  the  sugar  toys  of  their  vain  philosophy,  that  they 
may  perish  in  the  horrors  of  unsatisfied  hunger  and  thirst  after 
the  word  of  the  Lord  ?'" 

Shocking  as  this  whole  system  is,  we  doubt  not  it  will,  to  a 
certain  extent,  prevail  even  among  us ;  and  God  may  bring  good 
out  of  the  evil.  "  There  are  two  people,"  says  Hengstenberg,  "  in 
the  womb  of  this  age,  and  only  two.  They  will  become  constantly 
more  firmly  and  decidedly  opposed,  the  one  to  the  other.  Unbe- 
lief will  more  and  more  exclude  what  it  still  has  of  faith  ;  and 
faith,  what  it  has  of  unbelief.  Unspeakable  good  will  hence 
arise.  'And  the  Lord  said  unto  Gideon,  by  the  three  hundred 
men  that  lapped,  will  I  save  you,  and  deliver  the  Midianites  into 
thy  hand  ;  and  let  all  the  other  people  go,  every  man  unto  his 
own  place.'  Had  the  spirit  of  the  times  continued  to  make  con- 
cessions, concessions  would  have  been  constantly  made  to  it. 
But,  now,  since  every  concession  only  renders  it  more  importun- 
ate, those  who  are  not  ready  to  give  up  everything,  will  rncce  and 
more  resist,  and  demand  back  again  what  they  have  already 
yielded.  They  began  by  giving  up  the  first  chapter  in  Genesis, 
as  mythological,  which  even  well  meaning  theologians,  as  Seller 
and  Muntinghe,  thought  of  little  consequence.  Soon,  for  the 
supposed  greater  honor  of  the  New  Testament,  they  gave  up  the 
whole  Old  Testament  history,  as  mythological.  Scarcely  was 
this  point  reached,  when  they  felt  themselves  under  the  necessity 
of  giving  up  the  first  chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  with  the 
sincere  assurance  that  these  scruples  about  the  early  history  of 
Jesus  did  not  at  all  endanger  the  remaining  portions  of  his  fife. 
Soon,  however,  beside  the  beginning,  they  gave  up  the  end,  the 
account  of  the  ascension  of  Christ,  as  fabulous.     Even  here  there 

'  Conclusion  of  his  Hegelingen. 


124  THE    LATEST    FORM    OF    INFIDELITY. 

was  no  rest.  It  was  not  long  before  the  first  three  gospels  were 
yielded  to  the  enemy.  They  then  retired  on  the  gospel  of  John, 
and  loudly  boasted  that  there  they  were  safe,  not  without  some 
secret  misgivings,  however,  that  they  lived  only  by  the  forbear- 
ance of  the  foe.  He  has  already  appeared,  and  availed  himself  of 
the  same  weapons  which  had  already  gained  so  many  victories, 
and  the  gospel  of  John  is  now  no  better  off  than  the  rest.  Now, 
at  last,  a  stand  must  be  taken  ;  a  choice  'must  be  made  ;  either 
men  must  give  up  everything,  or  they  must  ascend  to  the  point 
whence  they  first  set  out,  and  through  the  very  same  stations 
through  which  they  descended.  To  this  they  will  not  be  able,  at 
once,  to  make  up  their  minds  ;  they  will  at  first  believe  that  they 
can  escape  at  a  cheaper  rate  ;  but  let  them  twist  and  tmrn  as 
they  may,  let  them  use  vvhat  arts  they  jDlease,  the  matter  can 
have  no  other  issue."'  This  has  a  special  reference  to  the  state 
of  opinion  in  Geraiany.  But  it  is  not  without  its  application  to 
us.  There  are  those  in  our  country,  even  among  the  orthodox, 
who  talk  of  a  mythology  of  the  Hebrews  ;  and  others  among  the 
Unitarians,  who  give  up  not  only  the  miracles  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  those  of  the  New.  All  such  must  either  go  on  or  go 
back.  Professor  Norton  cannot  give  up  the  first  chapters  of 
Matthew  as  fabulous,  and  call  him  an  infidel  who  gives  up  the 
remainder.  This  new  philosophy  will  break  up  the  old  divisions. 
It  will  carry  some  on  to  Atheism,  and  drive  others  back  to  the 
unmutilated  Bible. 

This  is  not  the  only  effect  which  this  new  leaven  may  be  ex- 
pected to  produce.  As  in  Germany  it  has  operated  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  Rationalism,  so  here  it  may  serve  to  bring  Socinianism  and 
Pelagianism  into  contempt.  Even  some  Unitarian  ministers  of 
Boston,  we  are  told,  have  already  discovered  that  "  the  religion 
of  the  day  seemed  too  cold,  too  lifeless,  too  mechanical,  for  many 
of  their  flock."°  "  There  are  many,  I  doubt  not,"  says  this  same 
authority,  "  who  will  welcome  its  principles  (i.  e.,  the  principles 
'of  the  leading  school  in  modern  German  theology')  as  soon  as 
they  are  understood,  as  the  vital,  profound,  and  ennobling  theol- 
ogy which  they  have  earnestly  sought  for,  but  hitherto  sought  in 
vain."  If  this  is  so,  then  farewell  to  Socinianism,  and  farewell 
to  Pelagianism.  If  only  for  consistency's  sake,  those  who,  with 
this  Alumnus,  find  in  the  transcendentahsm  of  Schleiermacher 
'  Kirchen-Zeitung,  January,  1836.  *  Letter  to  Mr.  Norton,  p.  12. 


THE    LATEST     FORM     OF    INFIDELITY.  125 

the  true  philoaopliy,  must  feel  or  affect  the  contempt  which  he 
felt  for  the  Katioualists  and  Pelagians.  The  ground  on  which 
they  stand,  however,  is  too  narrow  to  afford  them  a  footing. 
Schlciermacher  gave  up  almost  everything,  except  the  incarna- 
tion of  God  in  Christ.  This  was  the  centre  of  his  system. 
Those  whom  he  brought  off'  from  Kationalism,  have  almost  all 
gone  on,  with  the  Hegelians,  to  Atheism,  or  turned  back  to  the 
Bible.  And  so  it  will  be  here.  Indeed,  the  man  who  can  see  no 
harm  in  Pantheism,  who  thinks  it  a  most  religious  system,  and 
venerates  its  advocates,  as  is  the  case  with  this  Alumnus,  has  but 
one  step  to  take,  and  he  is  himself  in  the  abyss.  We  should  not, 
therefore,  be  surprised  to  see,  in  the  providence  of  Grod,  this  new 
philosophy,  which  is  in  itself  infinitely  worse  than  Socinianism  or 
Deism,  made  the  means  of  breaking  up  those  deadening  forms  of 
error,  and  while  it  leads  many  to  destruction,  of  driving  others 
back  to  the  fountain  of  life. 

Though,  for  the  reasons  stated  above,  we  think  it  not  unlikely 
that  this  system  will  make  a  certain  degree  of  progress  in  our 
country,  we  have  no  fear  of  its  ever  prevailing,  either  here  or  in 
England,  as  it  does  in  Germany.  Apart  from  the  power  of  true 
religion,  which  is  our  only  real  safeguard  against  the  most  ex- 
travagant forms  of  error,  there  are  two  obstacles  to  the  prevalence 
of  these  doctrines  among  Englishmen,  or  their  descendants. 
They  do  not  suit  our  national  character.  A  sanity  of  intellect, 
an  incapacity  to  see  wonders  in  nonsense,  is  the  leading  trait  of 
the  English  mind.  The  Germans  can  believe  anything.  Animal 
magnetism,  is,  for  them,  as  one  of  the  exact  sciences.  What 
suits  the  Germans,  therefore,  does  not  suit  us.  Hence  almost  all 
those  who,  in  England,  or  in  this  country,  have  professed  trans- 
cendentalism, like  puss  in  boots,  have  made  them  ridiculous.  If 
it  w^as  not  for  its  profaneness,  what  could  be  more  ludicrous  than 
Mr.  Emerson's  address  ?  He  tells  us,  that  religious  sentiment 
is  myrrh,  and  storax,  and  chlorine,  and  rosemary  ;  that  the  time 
is  coming  when  the  law  of  gravitation  and  purity  of  heart  will  be 
seen  to  be  identical,  that  man  has  an  infinite  soul,  &c.  How- 
much,  too,  does  Dr.  Henry  look,  in  Cousin's  philosophy,  like  a 
man  in  clothes  a  great  deal  too  large  for  him.  It  will  not  do. 
Such  men  were  not  made  for  transcendentalists.  This  is  not 
meant  in  disparagement  of  those  gentlemen.  It  is  a  real  com- 
pliment to  them,  though  not  exactly  to  their  wisdom.     Coleridge 


126  THE    LATEST    FORM    OF    INFIDELITY. 

is  the  only  Englishman  whom  we  know  anything  about,  who  took 
the  system  naturally.  To  him  it  was  truth  ;  he  was  a  mystic  : 
he  had  faith  in  what  he  said,  for  his  words  were  to  him  the 
symbols  of  his  own  thoughts.  It  is  not  so  with  others.  They 
repeat  a  difficult  lesson  by  rote,  striving  hard  all  the  while  not  to 
forget. 

The  Germans  keep  their  philosophy  for  suitable  occasions. 
They  do  not  bring  it  into  mathematics  or  history.  With  us, 
however,  it  is  far  too  fine  a  thing  to  be  kept  locked  up.  If  trans- 
cendental at  all,  we  must  be  so  always.  Marheineke,  the  first 
almost  in  rank  of  Hegel's  scholars,  has  written  a  history  of  the 
Grerman  Reformation,  which  is  a  perfect  master-piece  ;  perfectly 
simple,  graphic,  and  natural.  From  this  history,  the  reader 
could  not  teU  whether  he  was  a  Wolfian,  Kantian,  or  Hegelian  ; 
he  would  be  apt  to  think  he  was  a  Christian,  who  loved  Luther 
and  the  gospel.  Compare  this  with  Carlyle's  History  of  the 
French  Revolution,  which  is  almost  as  transcendental  as  Hegel's 
Encyklopadie. 

It  is  not,  however,  only  or  chiefly  on  this  want  of  adaptation 
of  the  German  mysticism  to  the  sane  English  mind,  that  we 
would  rely  to  counteract  the  new  philosophy  ;  it  is  the  influence 
of  the  Bible  on  all  our  modes  of  thinking.  We  believe  in  God 
the  Father,  the  maker  of  heaven  and  earth.  We  must  have  a 
God  who  can  hear  prayer.  In  Germany,  the  educated  classes, 
little  in  the  habit  of  attending  church,  have  for  generations  felt 
comparatively  little  of  the  power  of  the  Bible.  There  was  no 
settled  idea  of  a  personal  God,  such  as  is  visible  in  every  page  of 
the  Scriptures,  engraven  on  their  hearts.  They  were  therefore 
prepared  for  speculations  which  destroyed  his  very  nature,  and 
were  content  with  a  blind  instinctive  power,  productive  of  all 
changes,  and  struggling  at  last  '^nto  intelligence  in  the  human 
race.  Such  a  God  may  do  for  a  people  who  have  been  first 
steeped  in  infidelity  for  generations  ;  but  not  for  those  who  have 
been  taught  with  their  first  lispings,  to  say.  Our  Father  who  art 
in  heaven.  The  grand  danger  is,  that  this  deadly  poison  wiU  be 
introduced  under  false  labels  ;  that  this  Atheism,  enveloped  in 
the  scarcely  intelligent  formulas  of  the  new  philosophy,  may  be 
regarded  as  profound  wisdom,  and  thus  passed  from  mouth  to 
mouth  without  being  understood,  until  it  becomes  familiar  and 
accredited.     We  feel  it  to  be  a  solemn  duty  to  warn  our  readers, 


THE    LATEST     FORM     OF    INFIDELITY.  127 

and  in  our  measure,  the  public,  against  this  German  Atheism, 
which  the  spirit  of  darkness  is  employing  ministers  of  the  gospel 
to  smuggle  in  among  us  under  false  pretences.  No  one  will  deny 
that  the  Hegelian  doctrines,  as  exhibited  above,  are  Atheism  in 
its  worst  form  ;  and  all  who  will  read  the  works  of  Cousin,  may 
soon  satisfy  themselves  that  his  system,  as  far  as  he  has  a  sys- 
tem, is,  as  to  the  main  point,  identical  with  that  of  Hegel. 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT/ 

The  doctrine  of  which  this  little  book  treats  has  always  "been 
regarded  as  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  the  gospel.  It  was  the  bur- 
den of  apostolical  preaching  ;  the  rock  of  offence  to  Jews  and 
Greeks  ;  the  corner-stone  of  that  temple  in  which  God  dwells  by 
his  Spirit.  The  cross  is  the  symbol  of  Christianity  ;  that  in 
which  every  believer  glories,  as  the  only  ground  of  his  confidence 
toward  God.  The  rejection  of  this  doctrine,  therefore,  has  always 
been  regarded,  and  is,  in  fact,  a  rejection  of  the  gospel.  It  is 
the  repudiation  of  the  way  of  salvation  revealed  by  God,  and  the 
adoption  of  some  method  not  only  different  but  irreconcilable. 
Whatever,  therefore,  affects  the  integrity  of  this  doctrine,  affects 
the  whole  system  of  religion.  It  lies  in  such  immediate  contact 
with  the  source  of  all  spiritual  life,  that  the  very  nature  of  re- 
ligion depends  on  the  manner  in  which  it  is  apprehended. 
Though  all  moral  and  religious  truths  are  in  their  nature  sources 
of  power,  and  never  fail  to  influence,  more  or  less,  the  character 
of  those  who  embrace  them,  yet  some  truths  are  more  powerful, 
and  hence  more  important,  than  others.  We  may  speculate  with 
comparative  impunity  on  the  nature  of  angels,  on  the  origin  of 
evil,  on  the  purposes  of  God,  on  his  relation  to  the  world,  and 
even  on  the  grounds  and  nature  of  human  responsibihty ;  but 
when  we  come  to  the  question  :  How  am  I  to  gain  access  to 
God  ?  How  can  I  secure  the  pardon  of  my  sins  and.  acceptance 
with  him  .?  What  is  the  true  ground  of  hope,  and  what  must  I 
do  to  place  myself  on  that  ground  so  as  to  secure  the  assurance 

'  Published  in  1845,  in  review  of  a  pamphlet  entitled,  "Christ,  the  only  Sacrifice  ; 
or  the  Atonement  in  its  Relations  to  G-od  and  Man."  By  Nathan  S.  S.  Beman,  D.D., 
Pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church,  Troy,  New  Tork. — Princetox  Review. 


130  BEMAN    ON     THE     ATONEMENT. 

of  Grod's  love,  peace  of  conscience,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost  ? 
then  the  less  we  speculate  the  better.  The  nearer  we  keep  to 
the  simple,  authoritative  statements  of  Grod's  word,  the  firmer 
will  be  our  faith,  the  more  full  and  free  our  access  to  Grod,  and  the 
more  harmonious  and  healthful  our  whole  religious  experience. 
Such  is  the  informing  influence  of  such  experience,  when  it  is  gen- 
uine ;  that  is,  when  really  guided  by  the  Spirit  and  conformed  to  the 
revelation  of  Grod,  that  it  effects  a  far  nearer  coincidence  of  views 
in  all  the  children  of  Grod  than  the  multiplicity  of  sects  and  con- 
flicting systems  of  theology  would  lead  us  to  imagine.  The  mass 
of  true  Christians,  in  all  denominations,  get  their  religion  directly 
from  the  Bible,  Etnd  are  but  little  afiected  by  the  peculiarities  of 
their  creeds.  And  even  among  those  who  make  theology  a  study, 
there  is  often  one  form  of  doctrine  for  speculation,  and  another, 
simpler  and  truer,  for  the  closet.  Metaphysical  distinctions  are 
forgot  in  prayer,  or  under  the  pressure  of  real  conviction  of  sin, 
and  need  of  pardon  and  of  divine  assistance.  Hence  it  is  that 
the  devotional  writings  of  Christians  agree  far  nearer  than  their 
creeds.  It  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  that  mode  of  stating 
divine  truth,  which  is  most  in  accordance  with  the  devotional 
language  of  true  Christians  ;  which  best  expresses  those  views 
which  the  soul  takes  when  it  appropriates  the  doctrines  of 
the  gospel  for  its  own  spiritual  emergencies,  is  the  truest  and  the 
best. 

How,  then,  does  the  believer  regard  the  person  and  work  of 
Christ  in  his  own  exercises  of  faith,  gratitude,  or  love  ?  What 
is  the  language  in  which  those  exercises  are  expressed  ?  If  we 
look  to  the  devotional  writings  of  the  church,  in  all  ages  and 
countries,  and  of  all  sects  and  names,  we  shall  get  one  clear,  con- 
sistent answer.  What  David  wrote  three  thousand  years  ago, 
expresses,  with  precision,  the  emotions  of  God's  people  now. 
The  hymns  of  the  early  Christians,  of  the  Lutherans,  the  Re- 
formed, of  Moravians,  of  British  and  American  Christians,  all 
express  the  common  consciousness  of  God's  people  ;  they  all 
echo  the  words  and  accents  in  which  the  truth  came  clothed 
from  the  mouth  of  God,  and  in  which,  in  spite  of  the  obstruc- 
tions of  theological  theories,  it  finds  its  way  to  every  believing 
heart.  Now,  one  thing  is  very  plain.  Dr.  Beman's  theory  of  the 
atonement  never  could  be  learnt  from  the  devotional  language 
of  the  church  ;  ours  can.     Everything  we  believe  on  the  subject 


BEMAN    ON     THE    ATONEMENT.  131 

is  inwroiiglit,  not  only  in  the  language  of  the  Bible,  but  in  the 
language  of  God's  people,  whether  they  pray  or  praise,  whether 
they  mourn  or  rejoice.  We  have,  therefore,  the  heart  of  the 
church  on  our  side,  at  least. 

It  lies  on  the  very  surface  of  the  Scriptures  :  1.  That  all  men 
are  sinners.  2.  That  sin,  for  its  own  sake,  and  not  merely  to 
prevent  others  from  sinning,  deserves  punishment.  3.  That  God 
is  just ;  that  is,  disposed,  from  the  very  excellence  of  his  nature, 
to  treat  his  creatures  as  they  deserve,  to  manifest  his  favor  to 
the  good,  and  his  disapprobation  towards  the  wicked.  4.  That  to 
propitiate  God,  to  satisfy  his  righteous  justice,  the  Son  of  God 
assumed  our  nature,  was  made  under  the  law,  fulfilled  all  right- 
eousness, bore  our  sins,  the  chastisement  or  punishment  of  which 
was  laid  on  him.  5.  That  by  his  righteousness,  those  that  be- 
lieve are  constituted  righteous  ;  that  his  merit  is  so  given, 
reckoned  or  imputed  to  them,  that  they  are  regarded  and  treated 
as  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God.  These  truths,  wiiich  lie  on  the 
surface  of  the  Scriptures,  are  wrought  into  the  very  soul  of 
the  church,  and  are,  in  fact,  its  life.  Yet  every  one  of 
them,  except  the  first.  Dr.  Beman  either  expressly  or  virtually 
denies. 

He  denies,  that  sin  for  its  own  s;ake  deserves  punishment.  He 
everywhere  represents  the  prevention  of  crime  as  the  great  end 
to  be  answered  by  punishment,  even  in  the  government  of  God. 
If  that  end  can  be  otherwise  answered,  then  justice  is  satisfied  ; 
the  necessity  and  propriety  of  punishment  ceases.  This  is  the 
fundamental  principle  of  the  whole  system,  and  is  avowed  or 
implied  upon  almost  every  page.  His  argument  in  proof  that 
repentance  is  not  a  sufficient  ground  for  pardon,  is  that  it  has 
no  tendency  to  prevent  crime  in  others.  In  human  govern- 
ments, he  says,  punishment  is  designed  to  prevent  a  repetition 
of  crime  by  the  criminal,  and  to  prevent  its  commission  by  others. 
The  former  of  these  ends  might  be  answered  by  repentance,  but 
not  the  latter.  So  in  the  case  of  the  divine  government,  re- 
pentance on  the  part  of  the  sinner  might,  "  so  far  as  his  moral 
feehngs  are  concerned,"  render  it  consistent  in  God  to  forgive, 
but  then,  "  Where  is  the  honor  of  the  law  ?  Where  is  the  good 
of  the  universe  ?" — P.  57.  The  design  of  "  penalty  is  to 
operate  as  a  powerful  motive  to  obedience." — P.  127.  There 
is,  he  says,  the  same  necessity  for  atonement  as  for  the  penalty 


132  BEMAN     ON    THE    ATONEMENT. 

of  the  moral  law,  and  that  necessity  he  uniformly  represents  as 
a  necessity  "  to  secure  the  order  and  prosperity  of  the  universe." 
—P.  128. 

It  is  of  course  admitted  that  the  prevention  of  crime  is  one  of 
the  effects,  and  consequently  one  of  the  ends  of  punishment. 
But  to  say  that  it  is  the  end,  that  it  is  so  the  ground  of  its  in- 
fliction, that  all  necessity  for  punishment  ceases  vs^hen  that  end 
is  answered,  is  to  deny  the  very  nature  of  sin.  The  ideas  of 
right  and  wrong  are  simple  ideas,  derived  immediately  from  our 
moral  nature.  And  it  is  included  in  those  ideas  that  what  is 
right  deserves  approbation,  and  what  is  wrong  deserves  disappro- 
bation, for  their  own  sake,  and  entirely  irrespective  of  the  con- 
sequences which  are  to  flow  from  the  expression  of  this  moral 
judgment  concerning  them.  When  a  man  sins  he  feels  that  he 
deserves  to  suffer,  or,  as  the  apostle  expresses  it,  that  he  is 
"  worthy  of  death."  But  what  is  this  feeling  ?  Is  it  that  he 
ought  to  be  punished  to  prevent  others  from  sinning  ?  So  far 
from  this  being  the  whole  of  the  feeling,  it  is  no  part  of  it.  If 
the  sinner  were  alone  in  the  universe,  if  there  was  no  possibility 
of  others  being  affected  by  his  example,  or  by  his  impunity,  the 
sense  of  ill-desert  would  exist  in  all  its  force.  For  sin  is  that 
which  in  itself,  and  for  itself,  irrespective  of  all  consequences,  de- 
serves ill.  This  is  the  very  nature  of  it,  and  to  deny  this  is  to 
deny  that  there  is  really  any  such  thing  as  sin.  There  may  be 
acts  which  tend  to  promote  happiness,  and  others  which  tend  to 
destroy  it  ;  but  there  is  no  morality  in  such  tendency  merely, 
any  more  than  there  is  in  health  and  sickness.  The  nature  of 
moral  acts  may  be  evinced  by  their  tendency,  but  that  tendency 
does  not  constitute  their  nature.  To  love  Grod,  to  reverence 
excellence,  to  forgive  injuries,  all  tend  to  promote  happiness, 
but  no  man,  who  has  a  moral  sense  in  exercise,  can  say  that  they 
are  right  only  because  of  such  tendency.  They  are  right,  be- 
cause they  are  right,  in  \artue  of  their  own  inherent  nature. 
And  the  opposite  dispositions  or  acts  are  in  their  nature  evil, 
irrespective  of  their  tendency  to  produce  misery. 

The  theory  that  the  end  of  punishment,  even  in  the  divine 
government,  is  to  prevent  crime,  is  only  one  expression  of  the 
more  general  theory,  that  happiness  is  the  end  of  creation,  and 
that  all  holiness  is  resolvable  into  benevolence.  This  theory  is 
a  product  of  the  mere  understanding,  and  does  violence  to  the 


BEMAN    ON     THE    ATONEMENT.  133 

instinctive  moral  judgment  of  men.  We  know  that  holiness  is 
something  more  than  a  means  ;  that  to  be  happy  is  not  the  end 
and  reason  for  being  holy  ;  that  enjoyment  is  not  the  highest 
end  of  being.  Our  moral  nature  cannot  be  thus  obliterated,  and 
right  and  wrong  made  matters  of  profit  and  loss.  The  command 
not  to  do  evil  that  good  may  come,  would  on  this  theory  be  a 
contradiction,  since  that  ceases  to  be  evil  which  produces  good. 
All  virtue  is  thus  resolved  into  expediency,  and  the  doctrine  that 
the  end  sanctifies  the  means  becomes  the  fundamental  principle 
of  virtue.  It  is  strange  that  even  when  the  moral  feelings  are 
in  abeyance,  and  men  are  engaged  in  spinning  from  the  intellect, 
a  theory  that  will  reduce  to  unity  the  conflicting  facts  of  the 
moral  world,  they  could  adopt  a  view  which  reduces  all  intelligent 
beings  to  mere  recipients  of  happiness,  and  degrades  the  higher 
attributes  of  their  nature  into  mere  instruments  of  enjoyment ; 
a  theory  which  meets  its  refutation  in  every  moral  emotion,  and 
which  has  proved  itself  false  by  its  practical  effects.  We  may 
safely  appeal  to  the  convictions  of  every  man^s  breast,  against 
this  whole  theoiy,  and  against  the  doctrine  that  sin  is  punished 
and  deserves  punishment  only  as  a  warning  to  others.  No  man, 
when  humbled  under  the  sense  of  his  guilt  in  the  sight  of  God, 
can  resist  the  conviction  of  the  inherent  ill-desert  of  sin.  He 
feels  that  it  would  be  right  that  he  should  be  made  to  suffer, 
nay,  that  rectitude,  justice,  or  moral  excellence  demands  his 
suffering  ;  and  the  hardest  thing  for  the  sinner  to  believe,  is 
often,  that  it  can  be  consistent  with  the  moral  excellence  of  God, 
to  grant  him  forgiveness.  Into  this  feeling  the  idea  of  counteract- 
ing the  progress  of  sin,  or  promoting  the  good  of  the  universe, 
does  not  in  any  measure  enter.  The  feeling  would  be  the  same 
though  there  was  no  universe.  It  is  ill-desert  and  not  the  gen- 
eral good,  which  every  man  feels  in  his  own  case,  is  the  ground 
of  his  just  liability  to  punisliment.  And  without  this  feeling 
there  can  be  no  conviction  of  sin.  We  may  also  appeal  against 
this  metaphysical  theory  to  the  universal  consciousness  of  men. 
Though  it  is  admitted  that  governmental  reasons  properly  enter 
into  the  considerations  which  determine  the  nature  and  measure 
of  punishment,  yet  it  is  the  universal  and  intuitive  judgment  of 
men,  that  the  criminal  could  not  be  rightly  punished  merely  for 
the  public  good,  if  he  did  not  deserve  to  be  punished  irrespective 
of  that  good.      His  suffering  benefits  the  public  because  it  is 


13J:  B  E  M  A  N    ON     THE     ATONEMENT. 

deserved ;  it  iis  not  deserved  because  it  benellts  the  public. 
That  this  is  the  universal  judgment  of  men  is  proved  by  every 
exhibition  of  their  feelings  on  this  subject.  When  any  atrocious 
crime  is  committed,  the  public  indignation  is  aroused.  And 
when  the. nature  of  that  indignation  is  examined,  it  becomes 
manifest  that  it  arises  from  a  sense  of  the  inherent  ill-desert  of 
the  crime  ;  that  is,  a  sense  of  justice,  and  not  a  regard  to  the 
good  of  society  which  2)roduces  the  demand  for  punishment.  To 
allow  such  a  criminal  to  escape  with  impunity,  is  felt  to  be  an 
outrage  against  justice,  and  not  against  benevolence.  If  the 
public  good  was  the  grand  end  of  punishment,  then  if  punish- 
ment of  the  innocent  would  promote  that  most  efiectually,  the 
innocent  should  suffer  instead  of  the  guilty  ;  consequently  if 
murders  would  be  most  restrained  by  the  execution  of  the  wives 
and  children  of  the  assassins,  it  would  be  right  and  obligatory  to 
execute  them,  and  not  the  jDcrpetrators  of  the  crime.  If  this 
would  shock  every  man,  let  him  ask  himself  why.  What  is  the 
reason  that  the  execution  of  an  innocent  woman  for  the  public 
good,  would  be  an  atrocity  when  the  execution  of  the  guilty  hus- 
band is  regarded  as  a  duty  ?  It  is  simply  because  the  guilty  de- 
serve punishment  irrespective  of  the  good  of  society.  And  if  so, 
then  the  pubHc  good  is  not  the  ground  of  punishment  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  God,  but  the  inherent  ill-desert  of  sin.  Men  in  all 
ages  have  evinced  this  deep-seated  sense  of  justice.  Every  sacrifice 
ever  offered  to  God,  to  propitiate  his  favor,  was  an  expression  of 
the  conviction  that  the  sin  for  its  own  sake  deserved  punishmeut. 
To  tell  a  man  who  brought  his  victim  to  the  altar,  that  the  real 
philosophy  of  his  conduct  was  to  express  a  desire  for  his  own  re- 
formation, or  for  the  good  of  society,  would  be  a  mockery.  Such 
an  idea  never  entered  any  human  heart,  when  in  the  presence  of 
Grud  seeking  his  forgiveness. 

It  is  not  pretended  that  this  theory  is  taught  in  the  Bible.  It 
purports  to  be  a  philosophy.  The  Bible  contradicts  it  on  every 
page,  because  every  page  contains  some  exjjression  of  genuine 
human  feeling,  of  the  conviction  of  the  real  difference  between 
right  and  wrong,  of  a  true  sense  of  sin,  or  of  the  great  truth  that 
our  responsibility  is  to  God,  and  not  to  the  universe.  The  doc- 
trine, therefore,  that  sin  is  punished  merely  to  preserve  the  order 
and  prosperity  of  the  universe,  is  an  utterly  false  and  revolting 
theory  ;  inconsistent  with  the  intuitive  moral  judgments  of  men, 


BEMAN     ON     THE     ATONEMENT.  135 

subversive  of  all  moral  distinctions,  irreconcilable  with  the  ex- 
perience of  every  man  when  really  convinced  of  sin,  and  contra- 
dicted by  everything  the  Bible  teaches  on  the  subject. 

Dr.  Beman  again  denies,  and  it  is  essential  to  his  system  that 
he  should  deny,  the  justice  of  God.  He  admits  that  God  has  a 
disposition  to  promote  the  welfare  of  his  creatures,  and  so  to 
order  his  moral  government  as  to  make  it  produce  the  greatest 
amount  of  happiness.  This,  however,  is  benevolence,  and  not 
justice.  The  two  sentiments  are  perfectly  distinct.  This  our 
own  consciousness  teaches.  We  know  that  pity  is  not  reverence, 
that  gratitude  is  not  compassion,  and  we  know  just  as  well  that 
justice  is  not  benevolence.  The  two  are  perfectly  harmonious, 
and  are  but  different  exhibitions  of  moral  excellence.  The  judge 
of  all  the  earth  must  do  right.  It  is  right  to  promote  happiness, 
and  it  is  right  to  punish  sin  ;  but  to  refer  the  punishment  of  sin 
to  the  desire  to  promote  happiness,  is  to  attribute  but  one  form 
of  moral  excellence  to  God,  and  to  make  his  excellence  less  com- 
prehensive than  our  own.  Dr.  Beman  speaks  of  commutative, 
distributive,  and  general  justice.  The  former  has  relation  only 
to  the  regulation  of  property,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  this 
subject.  Distributive  justice  consists  in  the  distribution  of  re- 
wards and  punishments,  according  to  merit  or  demerit.  General 
justice,  he  says,  embraces  the  general  principles  of  virtue  or 
benevolence  by  which  God  governs  the  universe.  The  second 
Idhd,  he  correctly  says,  is  justice  in  the  common  and  appropriate 
sense  of  the  word. — P.  131.  When  we  say  that  he  denies  the 
justice  of  God,  we  mean  that  he  denies  that  justice,  in  its  com- 
mon and  appropriate  sense,  is  an  essential  attribute  of  the  divine 
nature.  There  is  nothing  in  his  nature  that  leads  to  the  punish- 
ment of  sin,  but  benevolence  or  a  regard  to  the  happiness 
of  the  universe.  If  that  is  secured,  sin  and  aU  sin  may 
go  unpunished  for  ever.  This,  we  say,  is  a  denial  of  divine 
justice. 

It  is  a  principle  of  our  nature,  and  a  command  of  God,  that 
we  should  regard  him  as  absolutely  perfect ;  that  every  moral 
excellence  which  we  find  in  ourselves  we  should  refer  to  him  in 
an  infinite  degree.  Why  do  we  believe  that  God  is  merciful, 
but  because  he  has  so  made  us  that  we  approve  of  mercy,  and 
because  he  has  in  his  word  declared  himself  to  be  full  of  com- 
passion ?     Our  moral  nature  is  as  much  a  revelation  of  God's 


136  BEMAN    ON     THE     ATONEMENT. 

perfections,  as  the  heavens  are  of  his  wisdom  and  power.  If 
therefore  he  has  implanted  in  us  a  sentiment  of  justice,  distinct 
from  that  of  benevolence,  we  are  constrained  by  the  very  consti- 
tution of  our  nature  to  refer  that  perfection  to  God.  All  men  in 
fact  do  it.  It  enters  into  the  sense  of  responsibility,  into  the 
nature  of  remorse,  and  into  that  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment 
which  manifest  themselves  in  every  human  breast.  Men  know 
that  God  is  just,  for  they  in  their  measure  are  just ;  and  they 
instinctively  fear  the  punishment  of  their  sins.  To  be  told  that 
God  is  only  benevolent,  that  he  punishes  only  when  the  happiness 
of  his  government  requires  it,  is  to  destroy  our  whole  allegiance 
to  God,  and  to  do  violence  to  the  constitution  of  our  nature. 
This  is  a  doctrine  that  can  only  be  held  as  a  theory.  It  is  in 
conflict  with  the  most  intimate  moral  convictions  of  men.  This, 
as  already  remarked,  is  evinced  by  the  sacrificial  rites  of  all  ages 
and  nations,  which  derive  their  whole  character  and  import  from 
the  assumption  that  God  is  just.  If  justice  is  merged  into 
benevolence,  they  cease  to  have  any  significance  as  propitiator}' 
offerings.  If,  then,  distributive  justice,  justice  "  in  its  common 
and  appropriate  sense,"  is  by  the  common  consciousness  of  men 
declared  to  be  a  virtue,  it  is  thereby  revealed  to  belong  to  God  ; 
and  he  can  no  more  cease  to  be  just,  than  he  can  cease  to  be 
benevolent  or  holy.  This  is  only  saying  that  if  moral  excellence 
leads  us  to  judge  that  sin  in  itself  deserves  punishment,  then  the 
infinite  moral  excellence  of  God  cannot  but  lead  him  to  treat  it 
as  it  deserves. 

Again  :  it  is  included  in  our  conception  of  God  as  absolutely 
independent  and  self-sufficient,  that  the  reasons  of  his  acts 
should  be  in  himself  He  is  absolutely  perfect,  he  acts  with  un- 
deviating  rectitude,  and  by  so  acting  he  promotes  the  highest 
good  of  his  creatures.  But  the  good  of  his  creatures  is  not  the 
end  of  his  actions,  for  of  him,  and  through  him,  and  to  him  are  all 
things.  It  is  to  subordinate  God  to  the  creature,  to  make  the 
creature  the  end  of  his  actions.  He  rewards  one  man  and  pun- 
ishes another,  not  because  he  will  thus  make  others  happy,  but 
because  it  is  right,  and  by  doing  right,  the  greatest  good  to 
others  is  the  result.  This  is  the  view  which  both  reason  and 
Scripture  present  of  God  as  infinite  and  self-sufficient,  who  is  the 
beginning  and  the  end  of  all  things.  It  is  hence  plain  how  the 
justice  of  God  necessarily  flows  from  liis  holiness.     He  is  so  holy 


BE  MAN    ON     THE    ATONEMENT.  lg>J 

that  he  delights  in  all  that  is  good,  and  hates  all  that  is  evil ; 
and  if  he  acts  agreeably  to  his  nature,  he  constantly  manifests 
this  love  of  excellence  and  hatred  of  sin.  But  what  is  reward 
and  punishment  but  the  manifestation  of  the  approbation  or 
disapprobation  of  God  ?  If  holiness  is  communion  with  him, 
sin  is  alienation  from  him  ;  if  his  favor  goes  out  towards  the  one, 
his  displeasure  goes  out  towards  the  other  ;  if  the  one  is  attract- 
ed, the  other  is  repelled.  The  attributes  of  God  are  not  so  many 
distinct  qualities,  but  one  perfection  of  excellence,  diversified  in 
our  conceptions,  by  the  diversity  of  the  objects  towards  which  it 
is  manifested.  The  justice  of  God  is  therefore  nothing  but  the 
holiness  of  God  in  relation  to  sin.  So  long  as  he  is  holy,  he 
must  be  just  ;  he  must  repel  sin,  which  is  the  highest  idea  we 
can  form  of  punishment.  To  say  then  that  God  punishes  only 
for  governmental  reasons,  is  to  destroy  our  very  conception  of  his 
nature. 

That  distributive  justice  is  an  essential  attribute  of  God,  is 
therefore  revealed  to  us  in  the  very  constitution  of  our  nature,  in 
which  we  find  a  sense  of  justice,  which  is  no  more  a  form  of 
benevolence  than  it  is  of  reverence.  It  is  revealed  in  all  the 
operations  of  conscience  ;  in  the  common  consciousness  of  men, 
as  exj^ressed  in  all  their  prayers,  confessions,  and  sacrificial  rites. 
It  is  revealed  in  the  Scriptures  in  every  possible  way ;  in  all  they 
teach  of  the  nature  of  God,  of  his  holiness,  of  his  hatred  of  sin, 
of  his  determination  to  punish  it ;  in  the  institution  of  sacrifices, 
and  in  the  law.  If  the  precepts  of  the  law  are  an  expression  of 
the  divine  perfection,  so  is  the  penalty.  If  the  one  declares  what 
it  is  right  for  God  to  require,  the  other  declares  what  it  is  right 
for  him  to  inflict.  If  God  does  not  command  us  to  love  him, 
merely  to  make  his  dominions  happy,  neither  does  he  punish 
merely  for  the  public  good.  The  law  is  a  revelation  of  what  is 
right,  and  God  will  require  and  do  right  for  his  own  sake,  and 
not  for  another  and  a  lower  end.  God  then  is  just,  and  Dr. 
Beman  and  his  theory,  by  denying  that  there  is  any  such  attri- 
bute in  God  as  justice  distinct  from  benevolence,  do  equal  vio- 
lence to  conscience,  reason,  and  the  Bible. 

Dr.  Beman,  again,  denies  that  Christ  made  a  true  and  proper 
satisfaction  to  divine  justice,  and  thus  departs  from  the  common 
faith  of  Christendom,  and  seriously  vitiates  the  whole  doctrine 
of  redemption.     It  is  well  known  that  at  the  time  of  the  Re- 


lob  B  E  M  A  N     ON     THE     ATONEMENT. 

formation  there  was  no  controversy  between  Protestants  and 
Romanists  either  as  to  the  necessity  or  nature  of  the  atonement. 
All  classes  of  Protestants,  and  the  church  of  Rome  itself,  united 
in  teaching,  1.  That  the  Son  of  God  having  assumed  our  nature, 
obeyed  and  suffered  in  our  stead,  thereby  making  a  true,  proper, 
and  complete  satisfaction  for  our  sins.  And  2.  That  his  right- 
eousness was  so  given  or  imputed  unto  us  as  to  constitute  us 
righteous  in  the  sight  of  God.  The  Romanists  even  reproached 
Protestants  for  not  coming  up  to  their  doctrine  on  this  subject, 
insisting  that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  was  not  only  full  and 
equivalent,  but  superabundant.  "Pretium,"  says  the  Cat.  Rom. 
i.  5,  15.  "  quod  Christus  pro  nobis  persolvit,  debitis  nostris  non 
par  solum  et  aequale  fuit,  verum  ea  longe  superavit."  It  is  one 
of  the  standing  heads  of  theology  in  the  Romish  systems,  Satis- 
factio  Christi  fuit  de  rigore  justitite,  which  they  prove  ;  and 
answer  the  common  Socinian  objections,  viz.,  that  such  a  satis- 
faction destroys  the  grace  of  salvation  ;  that  it  is  impossible  that 
the  temporal  sufferings  of  Christ  should  have  such  efficacy, 
etc.  As  to  their  views  of  the  second  point  above  mentioned,  it 
is  enough  to  quote  the  Ibllowing  passage  from  Turrettin,  vol.  ii., 
p.  709.  "  It  is  not  questioned,"  he  says,  "whether  the  righteous- 
ness and  merit  of  Christ  are  imputed  to  us  ;  for  this  the  Papists 
dare  not  deny.  The  Council  of  Trent,  sess.  vi.  c.  8,  says,  '  Christ 
by  his  most  holy  passion  on  the  cross  merited  justification  for  us, 
and  satisfied  God  the  Father  in  our  behalf,  and  no  one  can  be 
righteous  to  whom  the  merits  of  the  passion  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  are  not  communicated.'  Hence  Vasques,  in  1.  ii.  q.  114, 
disp.  222,  chap,  i.,  says,  '  We  concede  that  not  only  what  is 
within  us,  as  sin,  faith,  righteousness,  may  be  imputed  to  us,  but 
also  what  is  without  us,  as  the  merits  and  obedience  of  Christ ; 
because  not  only  what  is  within,  but  also  what  is  without,  on 
account  of  which  sometliing  is  jiiven  to  us,  is  said  to  belong  to 
us  (ad  aliquem  effectum),  as  though  they  were  really  our  own.' 
Bellarmin,  lib.  ii.,  de  Justi/.,  cap.  vii.,  acknowledges  the  same 
thing,  when  he  says,  '  If  Protestants  meant  only  that  the  merits 
of  Christ  are  imputed  to  us,  because  God  gives  them  to  us,  so 
that  we  can  present  them  to  God  for  our  sins,  he  having  assumed 
the  burden  of  making  satisfaction  for  us,  and  of  reconcihng  us 
to  the  Father,  the  doctrine  would  be  true.'  This  is  in  fact  pre- 
cisely what  we  do  mean.     For  when  he  adds,  '  we  hold  that  the 


BE  MAN     ON     THE    ATONEMENT.  133 

righteousness  of  Christ  is  so  imputed  to  us,  as  by  it  we  become 
formally  or  inherently  just,'  he  asserts  what  is  gratuitous  and 
false,  on  account  of  his  own  perverse  and  preposterous  theory  of 
moral  justification." ' 

The  Lutheran  church  held  the  strictest  form  of  doctrine  as  to 
the  nature  of  Christ's  satisfaction,  and  as  to  justification.  That 
church  teaches  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  strictly  penal, 
that  his  obedience  and  death  made  a  full  and  proper  satisfaction 
to  the  law  and  justice  of  God,  and  are  imputed  to  believers 
as  the  sole  ground  of  their  justification.  We  cannot  swell  our 
article  with  numerous  citations  in  proof  of  a  well  known  fact.  In 
the  Apology  for  the  Augsburg  Confession,  p.  93,  it  is  said, 
"  Christus,  quia  sine  peccato  subiit  poenam  peccati,  et  victima 
pro  nobis  factus  est,  sustulit  illud  jus  legis,  ne  accuset,  ne  dam- 
net  hos  qui  credunt  in  ipsum,  quia  ipse  est  propitiatio  pro  eis, 
propter  quam  justi  reputantur."  In  the  Form  of  Concord,  it  is 
said,  "Justitia  ilia,  quae  coram  Deo  fidei  aut  credentibus  et 
mera  gratia  imputatur,  est  obedientia,  passio,  et  resurrectio 
Christi,  quibus  ille  legi  nostra  causa  satisfecit  et  peccata  nostra 
expiavit." — P.  684.  Again,  j).  696,  "  Humana  natura  sola,  sine» 
divinitate,  asterno  omnipotenti  Deo  neque  obedientia,  neque 
passione  pro  totius  mundi  })eecatis  satisfacere  valuisset.  Divi- 
nitas  vero  sola  sine  humauitate  inter  Deum  et  nos  mediatoris 
partes  implere  non  potuisset.  Cum  autem.  *  *  ■••■■  obedientia 
ilia  Christi  non  sit  unius  duntaxat  naturas,  sed  totius  personee  ; 
ideo  ea  est  perfectissima  pro  humane  genere  satisfactio  et  ex- 
piatio  ;  qua  seternaB  et  immutabili  justitiee  divinse  *  *  * 
satis  est  factum." 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  prove  that  the  Eeformed  churches 
held  precisely  the  same  doctrine.  There  was  no  controversy  be- 
tween them  and  the  Lutherans  either  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
satisfaction  of  Christ,  or  as  to  justification.  They  difiered  only 
as  to  the  design  of  Christ's  death,  whether  it  had  respect  equally 

'  It  is  characteristic  of  the  church  of  Rome  that  while  she  holds  the  truth,  she 
contrives  to  make  it  of  no  effect  by  her  traditions.  Tiius  while  she  teaches  that  the 
merit  of  Christ  is  the  ground  of  our  justification,  she  makes  those  merits  accessible 
only  through  her  ministrations,  and  confounds  justification  and  sanctification.  And 
while  she  holds  the  truth  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  satisfaction,  she  chooses  to  con- 
fine it  to  original  and  mortal  sins,  that  she  may  make  room  for  her  own  doctrine  of 
satisfaction  by  good  works  and  penances.  The  infinite  value  of  the  Saviour's  merit, 
Hlie  perverts  as  a  source  whence  to  derive  the  power  to  grant  indulgences,  etc. 


140  BEMAN     ON     THE     ATONEMENT. 

to  all  men,  or  had  a  special  reference  to  his  own  people,  a  point 
which  we  hope  to  liave  room  to  discuss  in  the  sequel  of  this 
article.  We  are  now  concerned  only  about  the  nature  of  the 
atonement.  Bretschneider  states,  in  a  few  words,  the  common 
doctrine  on  this  subject  of  the  two  great  divisions  of  the  Pro- 
testant world.  After  saying  that  Grod,  according  to  that  doc- 
trine, is  immutably  just,  and  therefore  must  punish  sin,  and  yet 
being  immutably  benevolent,  he  determined  to  provide  redemp- 
tion, he  proceeds,  "For  this  it  was  necessary,  1.  That  some  one 
in  the  place  of  men  should  fulfil  the  law  which  they  ought  to 
have  kept ;  and  2.  That  some  one  should  endure  the  punish- 
ment (Strafen)  which  they  had  incurred.  Tliis  no  mere  man 
could  do,  for  no  man  (since  all  are  subject  to  original  sin)  could 
perfectly  keep  the  law,  and  every  man  must  suffer  for  his  own 
sin.  Neither  could  any  divine  person  accomplish  the  task,  since 
he  could  not  sustain  suffering  and  punishment.  He  alone  who 
is  at  once  God  and  man,  with  a  human  nature  free  from 
sin,  could  accomplish  the  work." '  This  righteousness,  he  adds, 
"  Grdd  imputes  to  men  as  though  they  had  wi-ought  it  out  them- 
■  selves." 

Against  this  doctrine  of  satisfaction  to  the  divine  justice  the 
Socinians  were  the  first  to  object.*  Under  the  pressure  of  their 
objections  the  Kemonstrants  in  Holland  gave  way,  and  G-rotius 
in  his  work,  De  Satisfactione  Ghristi,  though  defending  in  the 
main  the  catholic  or  common  doctrine,  introduced  the  principle, 
that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  was  rendered  to  the  governmental 
justice  of  God.  Very  far  below  the  doctrine  of  Grotius,  in  many 
important  respects,  is  the  theory  of  Dr.  Beman.  In  some  cases 
he  falls  even  below  Socinus.  "  God,  as  the  supreme  governor," 
he  says,  "  must  so  conduct  all  his  movements,  whether  of  justice 
or  mercy,  as  to  leave  on  the  minds  of  dependant  creatures  a  deep 
and  just  impression,  that  the  penalty  of  the  law  will  be  executed, 
and  that  the  sinner  must  perish.  To  fix  this  impression  indel- 
ibly in  the  breast  of  the  sinner,  is  the  object  of  the  atonement." 
— P.  41."     This,  however,  is  probably  a  lapsus,  such  an  one,  how- 

'  Bretschneider's  ITandbuck  der  Dogmatik,  vol.  ii.,  p  266. 

'  In  the  Racovian  Catechism,  it  is  asked,  "  Did  Christ  die  that  he  might,  properly 
speaking,  merit  our  salvation,  or,  in  like  manner,  properly  speaking,  discharge  the 
debt  due  for  our  sins?  Ans.  Although  Christians  generally  now  hold  that  opinion, 
yet  the  sentiment  is  false,  erroneous,  and  exceedingly  pernicious." 

3  Socinus  taught   that   the   atonement   was   designed,    1.   To  confirm    the   new 


BEMAN     ON     THE     ATONEMENT.  141 

ever,  as  few  men  could  make.  He  generally  includes  other  in- 
telligent creatures.  Still,  with  him,  the  atonement  is  a  mere 
method  of  instruction  ;  a  means  to  exhibit  a  certain  truth  for 
the  moral  restraint  or  improvement  of  those  to  whom  it  is  made 
known.  The  gratuitous  forgiveness  of  sin,  it  is  said,  would  tend 
to  produce  the  impression  that  God  was  indifferent  to  his  law, 
and  that  sin  might  be  committed  with  impunity.  To  counteract 
that  impression,  to  teach,  or  declare  that  sin  was,  in  the  sight 
of  God,  an  evil,  and  would  be  punished,  and  thus  to  open  a  way 
to  exercise  mercy,  without  weakening  the  motive  to  obedience, 
is  the  design  of  the  death  of  Christ.  Justice,  in  its  "  common 
appropriate  sense,"  he  says,  "  was  not  satisfied  by  the  atonement 
of  Jesus  Christ." — P.  131.  "  The  law,  or  justice,  that  is,  dis- 
tributive justice,  as  expressed  in  the  law,  has  received  no  satis- 
faction at  all." — P.  133.  So  far  as  the  atonement  secured  the 
government  of  God  from  the  evils  of  gratuitous  forgiveness,  it 
was  a  satisfaction  to  his  benevolence,  but  not  to  justice  in  any 
other  sense. — P.  182.  It  was  designed  to  teach  a  certain  truth  ; 
it  is  "  a  symbolical  and  substantive  expression  of  God's  regard 
to  the  moral  law." — P.  35.  "  It  furnishes  an  expression  of  his 
regard  for  the  moral  law,"  and  "evinces  his  determination 
to  punish  sin." — -P.  91.  "  To  fix  indelibly  this  impression 
on  the  heart  of  the  sinner  is  the  object  of  the  atonement." 
—P.  42. 

Our  first  remark  on  this  subject,  after  showing,  as  we  think 
we  have  done,  that  the  whole  basis  of  this  theory  is  false,  is  that 
it  is  destitute  of  any  semblance  of  support  from  Scripture.  It 
hardly  purports  to  be  anything  more  than  a  hypothesis  on  which 
to  reconcile  what  the  Bible  teaches  with  our  views  of  moral  gov- 
ernment. It  is  a  device  to  make  the  atonement  rational,  to  ex- 
plain away  the  mystery  which  hangs  over  it,  and  makes  the 
whole  august  transaction  perfectly  intelligible.  Dr.  Beman  says 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  enters  "  into  the  very  texture 
of  revelation,  warp  and  woof."  It  is,  he  says,  "  the  vital  prin- 
ciple, in  the  very  heart  of  the  gospel." — P.  62.  Surely  then  we 
have  a  right  to  have  it  treated  as  "a  purely  bibhcal  question," 

covenant  and  all  its  promises,  especially  those  of  the  pardon  of  sin,  and  of  eternal 
life.  2.  To  assure  us  of  the  love  of  God.  3.  To  induce  us  to  embrace  the  gospel. 
4  To  encourage  us  by  his  example  to  trust  in  God.  5.  To  abrogate  the  old  dis- 
pensation, etc. 


112  B  E  M  A  N    ON    THE     ATONEMENT. 

as  he  affirms  it  to  be.  Yet  in  his  chapter  on  the  nature  of  the 
atonement,  so  far  as  we  can  find,  he  refers  to  but  one  solitary 
text  in  the  whole  Bible  !  It  is  a  theory  woven  warp  and  woof 
out  of  the  understandinp;,  not  even  out  of  the  conscience.  The 
solitary  passage  which  Dr.  Beman  cites  as  teaching  his  doctrine 
is  Rom.  iii.  25,  where  it  is  said  that  God  set  forth  Christ  as  a 
propitiation  for  our  sins,  to  declare  his  righteousness.  "  The 
object  of  the  atonement,"  he  says,  "  is  here  stated  in  explicit 
terms.  It  was  required  and  made  in  order  to  open  a  consistent 
way  for  the  publication  of  pardon,  or  for  the  exercise  of  grace  to 
sinners.  Its  purpose  was  to  declare  the  righteousness  or  moral 
rectitude  and  perfection  of  God  in  dispensing,  in  this  instance, 
with  the  literal  execution  of  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  in  be- 
stowing eternal  life  upon  those  who  deserved  to  die." — P.  124. 
He  afterwards,  p.  132,  says,  the  words  just  and  righteousness  as 
here  used  have  "  no  direct  reference  to  law,"  but  express 
"  those  princijDles  of  virtue  or  benevolence  by  which  we  are  bound 
to  regulate  our  conduct,  and  by  which  God  governs  the  universe." 
Then  of  course  the  passage  might  be  rendered,  "  Christ  was  sent 
forth  as  a  propitiation  to  declare  the  benevolence  of  God,  that 
he  might  be  benevolent  even  in  remitting  the  sins  of  those  that 
believe  ;"  an  interpretation  which  needs  no  refutation.  The  first 
remark  then  to  be  made  on  this  passage  is,  that  it  teaches  the 
very  reverse  of  what  it  is  cited  to  prove.  Dr.  Beman  himself 
says  that  in  their  "  common  and  appropriate  sense,"  the  words 
just  and  justice  have  reference  to  law,  and  express  what  he  calls 
distributive  justice.  Then  if  the  language  of  the  apostle  is  to  be 
taken  in  a  "  common  and  appropriate  sense,"  it  teaches  that  the 
propitiation  of  Christ  was  designed  as  an  exhibition  of  justice  in 
its  proper  sense,  in  order  to  make  it  apparent  that  God  was  just 
even  in  remitting  sin  ;  that  the  demands  of  justice  had  not  been 
sacrificed,  but  on  the  contrary  fully  satisfied.  It  is  only  by 
taking  the  words  in  a  sense  that  is  inappropriate  and  unusual, 
that  any  other  doctrine  can  be  got  out  of  the  passage.  Besides, 
Dr.  Beman's  interpretation  is  not  only  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
common  meaning  of  the  words,  but  to  the  necessary  sense  of  the 
context.  Satisfaction  to  justice  is  the  formal  idea  of  a  propitia- 
tion ;  and  saying  that  Christ  was  a  propitiation,  is  only  saying 
in  other  words,  that  our  sins  were  laid  on  him,  that  he  bore  the 
chastisement  or  punishment  of  our  sins,  in  order  that  God  might 


B  E  M  A  N     ON    THE     ATONEMENT.  143 

be  just,  in  justifying  those  that  believe.  Again  :  this  interpre- 
tation is  agreeable  to  the  sense  in  which  the  words  just,  righteous, 
righteousness,  etc.,  are  familiarly  used  by  the  apostle.  Is  God 
unrighteous,  he  asks,  who  taketh  vengeance  ?  Rom.  iii.  5.  He 
denounces  the  divine  judgment,  by  saying,  Grod  will  cut  short 
the  work  in  righteousness.  Rom.  ix.  28.  See  also  2  Thess.  i.  5,  6. 
The  obvious  sense  then  of  the  passage  in  Rom.  iii.  25,  is  the  op- 
posite to  that  which  Dr.  Beman  gives  it.' 

But  if  we  admit  that  the  passage  in  question  does  teach  that 
the  atonement  was  designed  to  set  forth  God's  regard  for  the 
good  of  the  universe,  what  then  ?  would  it  establish  Dr.  Beman's 
theory  ?  Far  from  it.  It  is  one  of  the  most  common  fallacies  of 
theological  writers,  to  seize  upon  some  one  passage,  and  shutting, 
their  eyes  to  aU  others,  assume  that  it  teaches  the  whole  truth 
on  a  given  subject.  The  death  of  Christ  was  designed  to  answer 
manifold  ends,  more  perhaps  than  it  has  yet  entered  into  the 
heart  of  man  to  imagine.  It  would  be  the  extreme  of  folly  to 
take  one  of  those  ends,  and  infer  that  its  attainment  was  its 
whole  design,  or  let  us  into  the  full  knowledge  of  its  nature.  Is 
it  not  said  a  hundred  times  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  designed 
to  exhibit  the  love  of  God  ?  Does  this  prove  that  it  does  not  dis- 
play his  righteousness.  It  is  said  to  declare  his  wisdom  ;  does  that 
prove  it  does  not  display  his  love  ?  It  was  desi,gned  to  bring 
us  unto  God,  but  does  that  prove  it  was  not  also  an  atonement  ? 
It  is  not  by  taking  any  one  view,  or  any  one  text,  that  we  can 
arrive  at  the  truth.  We  must  have  a  theory  which  will  embrace 
all  the  facts  ;  a  doctrine  which  includes  all  the  revelations  God 
has  made  on  this  subject.  The  objection  to  Dr.  Beman's  view 
of  the  design  of  Christ's  death  is  not  that  it  is  false,  but  that  it 
is  defective.     It  states  only  a  part,  and  a  subordinate  part  of  the 

*  "  We  see  ourselves  obliged,"  says  Tholuck,  -'to  admit,  iu  this  place,  the' idea  of 
distributive  justice  (vergeltende  Gerechtigkeit)."  He  afterwards  says  that  the  loss 
of  that  idea  in  theology  has  occasioned  "  unspeakable  evil,"  and  that  the  doctrine  of 
atonement  "must  remain  sealed  up  until  it  is  acknowledged."  See  his  Edrner- 
brief,  ed.  1842.  He  refers  with  approbation  to  Usteri's  exposition  of  this  passage  in 
his  FauUmscher  Lehrbegriff.  On  turning  to  that  author,  we  find  he  says,  his 
object  is  to  grove  "that  the  representation  contained  in  Rom.  iii.  24,  25,  viz.,  that 
God,  to  declare  his  righteousness,  laid  on  Christ  the  punishment  of  the  sins  of  men, 
is  the  doctrine  of  Paul."  And  he  accordingly  goes  on  to  prove  it,  particularly 
from  Rom.  viii.  3.  Usteri  is  one  of  those  writers  who  do  not  feel  called  upon  to 
believe  what  the  Scripture  teaches,  though  they  make  it  a  point  of  honor  to  state  its 
meaning  fairly. 


144  BEMAN     ON     THE    ATONEMENT. 

truth.  The  atonement  is  an  exhibition  of  God's  purpose  to 
maintain  his  law  and  to  inflict  its  penalty,  and  thus  to  operate 
as  a  restraint  and  a  motive  on  all  intelli<rent  beins^s,  because  it 
involves  the  execution  of  that  penalty.  It  is  this  that  gives  it 
all  its  power.  It  would  be  no  exhibition  of  justice,  if  it  were  not 
an  exercise  of  justice  ;  it  would  not  teach  that  the  penalty  of 
law  must  be  inflicted,  unless  it  was  inflicted.  We  hold  aU  the 
little  truth  there  is  in  Dr.  Beman's  doctrine,  but  we  hold  un- 
speakably more. 

Our  immediate  object,  however,  is  to  call  attention  to  the  en- 
tire absence  of  all  scriptural  support  for  this  theory.  We  have 
already  shown  that  the  only  passage  directly  referred  to  does  not 
teach  what  it  is  cited  to  prove,  and  that  if  it  did,  it  would  give 
no  support  to  the  theory  built  upon  it.  The  surprising  fact, 
however,  should  be  more  distinctly  noticed,  that  while  the  Bible 
is  said  to  be  full  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  scarcely  an  at- 
tempt is  made  to  prove  its  nature  from  the  Bible.  Christ  is  said 
to  be  a  sacrifice,  to  bear  our  sins,  to  be  a  propitiation,  a  ransom, 
&c.,  &c.,  but  no  attempt  is  made  to  tell  us  what  all  this  means. 
There  is  no  examination  of  the  terms,  no  elucidation  of  the 
meaning  they  bore  in  the  age  of  the  apostles.  The  writer  does 
not  even  pretend  to  found  his  theory  upon  them.  In  the  chapter 
in  which  he  gives  his  own  view  of  the  nature  of  the  atonement, 
they  are  scarcely  even  mentioned.  The  whole  affair  is  a  piece 
of  pure  Rationalistic  speculation,  formed  on  certain  principles 
of  moral  philosophy  which  have  nothing  to  do  wnth  the  Bible. 
It  is  assumed  that  hapjiiness  is  the  end  of  all  things  ;  that  to 
promote  happiness  is  the  essence  of  virtue  ;  that  the  prevention 
of  crime,  which  causes  misery,  is  the  end  of  punishment  ;  that 
the  death  of  Christ,  as  it  tends  to  prevent  crime,  supersedes  the 
necessity  of  punishment.  There  is  the  theory.  And  we  can 
hardly  avoid  saying  that  it  has  more  affinity  with  Jeremy  Ben- 
tham,  and  "  the  greatest  happiness"  system,  than  it  has  with  the 
Bible,  or  with  the  sympathies  of  Christians. 

Our  next  remark  on  this  theory  is  that  it  is  perfectly  arbitrary. 
The  Bible  teaches  that  Christ  was  a  sacrifice,  that  he  bore  our 
sins,  that  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  laid  upon  liim ;  that 
he  propitiated  God  ;  was  a  ransom ;  was  made  sin,  that  we 
might  be  made  righteous.  These  and  similar  statements  set 
forth  the  nature  of  the  atonement.     There  are  many  others  de- 


BE  MAN     ON    THE     ATONEMENT.  145 

scribing  some  of  its  manifold  effects.  It  declared  the  justice  of 
God,  exhibited  his  wisdom,  set  us  an  example,  purifies  his  people, 
and  in  short,  glorifies  God  and  promotes  the  best  interests  of  his 
kingdom.  If  you  take  in  the  former  statements,  there  is  perfect 
unity  in  all  these  representations.  The  work  of  Christ  is  a  dis- 
play of  the  justice  and  love  of  God,  it  leads  men  to  repentance, 
and  exerts  this  moral  influence  on  the  universe,  because  it  is  a 
satisfaction  to  divine  justice,  and  answers  the  demands  of  his 
law.  But  if  the  scriptural  account  of  its  nature  be  rejected, 
then  it  is  a  matter  to  be  arbitrarily  decided,  which  of  its  effects 
shall  be  selected  as  determining  its  character.  If  Dr.  Bern  an 
says  it  is  an  atonement  because  it  expresses  God's  regard  to  the 
order  and  welfare  of  his  government  ;  Socinus  may  say,  it  is  an 
atonement  because  it  assures  us  of  the  love  of  God.  The  one  is 
just  as  much  right  as  the  other  ;  for  both  are  right  as  far  as 
they  go  ;  but  both  are  arbitrary  in  selecting  what  suits  their 
taste,  or  their  philosophy,  and  rejecting  all  the  rest.  Dr.  Beman 
does  not  pretend  that  his  doctrine  is  taught  in  those  passages  of 
Scripture  which  really  describe  the  nature  of  the  atonement, 
neither  does  Socinus.  Both  say  all  that  is  figurative.  The  one 
says  its  nature  is  to  be  inferred  from  one  of  its  effects,  the  other 
from  another  ;  the  one  considers  it  as  designed  mainly  to  teach 
God's  rectoral  justice,  the  other  his  love.  It  is  perfectly  plain 
that  on  this  plan  the  citadel  is  surrendered.  Dr.  Beman  can 
have  nothing  to  say  to  the  Socinian,  which  the  Socinian  cannot 
retort  on  Dr.  Beman.  Both  admit  that  we  are  saved  by  the 
death  of  Christ  ;  the  one  affirming  that  it  is  because  it  brings 
us  to  repentance,  and  thus  makes  our  forgiveness  consistent  with 
the  character  of  God  and  the  interests  of  his  kingdom  ;  the 
other,  that  it  is  because  it  reconciles  forgiveness  with  the  good 
of  the  universe,  in  a  different  way. 

It  may  also  on  this  ground  be  made  a  fair  subject  of  debate, 
which  view  really  assigns  most  importance  to  the  death  of  Christ. 
Is  it  clear  that  fear  is  more  conservative  than  love  .^  that  the  ex- 
hibition of  God's  regard  to  law  would  have  a  greater  effect  in 
promoting  holiness  than  the  exhibition  of  his  mercy  ?  We  very 
much  doubt  it.  And  we  confess  ourselves  very  much  at  a  loss 
to  see,  why  the  Socinian  view  of  the  design  of  the  Redeemer's 
death  should  be  regarded  as  a  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment, if  his  death  was  merely  designed  to  exert  a  conservative 

10 


146  BE  MAN    ON    THE     ATONEMENT. 

influence  on  the  moral  government  of  God.  Certain  it  is 
that  this  is  not  the  doctrine  against  which  the  early  Socinians 
contended. 

It  is  further  plain  that  the  principles  of  interpretation  which 
Dr.  Beman  is  obliged  to  adopt  to  reconcile  his  theory  with  the 
Bible,  are  all  that  is  wanted  to  serve  the  purpose  of  Socinians. 
They  both  deny  that  we  are  to  take  the  language  of  Scripture 
according  to  its  "common  and  appropriate  sense,"  and  agreeably 
to  the  mode  of  thinking  prevalent  in  the  age  in  which  it  was 
uttered.  The  vastly  different  views  entertained  by  Dr.  Beman 
and  Socinus  as  to  the  person  of  Christ,  make  of  course  a  corre- 
sponding difference  in  their  whole  religious  system.  But  as  to 
the  nature  of  the  atonement,  we  have  always  considered  the 
ground  advocated  by  Dr.  Beman  as  utterly  untenable  against 
the  arguments  of  Socinians.  It  is  a  rejection  of  the  scriptural 
account,  and  after  that  is  done,  one  theory  has  as  much  authority 
as  another. 

Our  third  remark  is,  that  this  theory,  besides  being  indepen- 
dent of  Scripture,  and  perfectly  arbitrary,  is  directly  opposed' to 
the  explicit  teaching  of  the  word  of  Grod.  Be  it  remembered 
that  the  Bible  is  admitted  to  be  full  of  the  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment ;  that  it  is  the  great  central  point  in  the  religion  of  re- 
deemed man.  It  is  also  admitted  that  God  has  revealed  not 
only  the  fact  that  we  are  saved  by  the  obedience  and  death  of 
Christ,  but  also  the  way  in  which  his  work  is  efficacious  to  that 
end.  The  Socinian  says,  it  is  by  its  moral  effect  upon  men ;  Dr. 
Beman  says,  it  is  from  its  tendency  to  prevent  crime  and  preserve 
the  order  of  the  universe  ;  the  common  faith  of  Christendom  is, 
that  Christ  saves  us  by  satisfying  the  demands  of  law  and  justice 
in  our  stead.  As  the  Bible  isfull  of  this  doctrine  it  must  enable 
us  to  decide  which  of  these  views  is  right,  for  the  Bible  was  in- 
tended to  teach  us  the  way  of  salvation.  We  are  taught  then  first, 
that  Christ  bore  our  sins.  Heb.  ix.  28  ;  1  Pet.  ii.  24  ;  Is.  liii.  12, 
&c.  It  cannot  be  disputed  that  the  usual  scriptural  meaning  of 
the  expression,  to  hear  sin,  is  to  bear  the  punishment  due  to  sin. 
Lev.  xxii.  9.  If  they  keep  not  my  ordinance  "  they  shall  bear 
sin  for  it."  Num.  xviii.  22,  xiv.  33  ;  Lev.  v,  1, 17.  "  He  is  guilty, 
and  shall  bear  his  iniquity."  Ez.  xviii.  20.  "  The  soul  that 
sinneth  it  shall  die.  The  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the 
father,  neither  shall  the  father  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  son."    No 


BEMAN     ON     THE     ATONEMENT.  147 

one  doubts  that  this  means,  the  son  shall  not  be  punished  for  the 
sins  of  the  father,  nor  the  father  for  the  sins  of  the  son.  When 
therefore  the  Scriptures  say  that  Christ  bore  our  sins,  they  say 
in  express  terms,  that  he  bore  the  punishment  of  our  sins.  This 
is  rendered  the  more  certain,  because  he  bore  them  by  suffering, 
or  by  dying  ;  and  because  the  Scriptures  express  the  same  idea 
in  so  many  other  ways.  This  account  of  the  nature  of  the  atone- 
ment is  found  not  only  in  poetical  descriptions  of  Christ's 
sufferings,  but  in  the  most  didactic  portions  of  the  Bible.  The 
language  used  had  an  established  sense  in  the  minds  of  those  to 
whom  it  was  addressed,  who  could  not  fail  to  understand  it  ac- 
cording to  its  obvious  meaning.  That  meaning,  therefore,  we  are 
bound,  by  all  the  sound  rules  of  interpretation,  to  believe  the 
sacred  writers  intended  to  convey.  How  does  Dr.  Beman  answer 
this  ?  Does  he  attempt  to  show  that  the  phrase  "  to  bear  sin" 
does  commonly  mean  to  bear  the  punishment  of  sin  ?  or  that  it 
has  not  that  meaning  when  used  in  reference  to  Christ  ?  As  far 
as  we  have  been  able  to  find,  he  contents  himself  with  some 
general  remarks  against  taking  figurative  language  in  its  literal 
sense.  He  subjects  the  passages,  in  which  the  phrase  in  ques- 
tion occurs,  to  no  critical  examination.  He  makes  no  attempt 
to  show  that  figurative  language  may  not  convey  a  definite  mean- 
ing, or  that  that  meaning  is  not  to  be  learnt  from  usage,  and  the 
known  opinions  of  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed.  It  is  enough 
for  him  that  l^e  does  not  like  the  truth,  which  the  passages  in 
question  would  then  teach  ;  that  he  cannot  see  how  the  innocent 
could  so  take  the  place  of  the  guilty  as  to  bear  their  punishment ; 
that  he  cannot  reconcile  this  doctrine  with  the  justice  of  God, 
nor  with  his  views  of  other  portions  of  Scripture.  In  the  mean- 
time the  plain  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  stands,  and  those  who 
find  all  other  scriptural  representations  consistent  with  that 
meaning,  and  to  whom  it  is  in  fact  the  very  gTOund  of  their  hope 
towards  God,  will  receive  it  gladly,  and  in  all  its  simplicity. 
The  theory  of  Dr.  Beman,  then,  which  deifies  that  Christ 
sufiered  the  penalty  due  to  our  sins,  must  be  admitted  to  be 
in  direct  conflict  with  these  express  declarations  of  the  word  of 
God.' 

'  Professor  Stuart,  in  his  Commentary  and  Excursus  on  Hcb.  ix.  23,  says,  'To  hear 
(he  sins  of  others,  is  to  bear  or  endure  the  penalty  due  to  them."  Haying  proved  this, 
ho  adds,  "  The  sentiment  of  the  clause  then  clearly  is.  that  Jesus  by  his  death  (which 


148  BE  MAN    ON     THE     ATONEMENT. 

Secondly,  the  Scriptures,  in  order  to  teach  us  the  nature  of 
atonement,  say  that  Christ  offered  himself  as  a  sacrifice  unto 
God.  What,  then,  is,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  a  sacrifice 
for  sins  .^  "  The  essence  of  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,"  says  Storr, 
"is  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  through  the  transfer  of  punishment 
from  the  actual  offender  to  another."'  The  moderate  Bishop 
Burnet  says  :  "  The  notion  of  an  expiatory  sacrifice  which  was 
then,  when  the  New  Testament  was  writ,  well  understood  all 
the  world  over,  both  by  Jews  and  Gentiles,  was  this,  that  the  sin 
of  one  person  was  transferred  on  a  man  or  beast,  who  upon  that 
was  devoted  or  offered  to  God,  and  suffered  in  the  room  of  the 
offending  person  ;  and,  by  this  oblation,  the  punishment  of  the 
sin  being  laid  on  the  sacrifice,  an  expiation  was  made  for  sin, 
and  the  sinner  was  believed  to  be  reconciled  to  God/'^  That 
this  is  the  correct  view  of  the  scriptural  doctrine  concerning 
sacrifices,  may  be  inferred  : — 1.  From  its  being  confessedly  the 
light  in  which  they  were  generally  regarded  by  the  Jews  and  by 
the  whole  ancient  world,  and  from  its  being  a  simple  and  natural 
explanation  of  the  service.  On  this  hypothesis,  everything  is 
significent  and  intelligible.  2.  From  the  express  didactic  state- 
ments of  the  Bible.  The  life  is  said  to  be  in  the  blood,  and  "  I 
have  given  it  to  you  as  an  atonement  for  your  souls  ;  for  it  is  the 
blood  that  maketh  atonement  for  the  soul  (life)."  Lev.  xvii,  11. 
The  very  nature  of  the  service,  then,  was  the  substitution  of  life 
for  life.  The  life  forfeited  was  redeemed  by  the  life  paid.  3. 
From  all  the  rites  connected  with  the  service,  and  all  the  ex- 
pressions employed  concerning  it.  There  was  to  be  confession 
of  sin,  imposition  of  hands  (as  expressing  the  idea  of  transfer  and 
substitution)  :  the  sins  were  said  to  be  laid  on  the  head  of  the 
victim,  which  was  then  put  to  death,  or,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
scapegoat,  dismissed  into  the  wilderness,  and  another  goat  sacri- 
ficed in  its  place.  All  these  directions  plainly  teach  that  the 
nature  of  expiatory  offerings  consisted  in  the  substitution  of  the 

could  take  place  but  once),  endured  the  penalty  that  our  sins  deserved,  or  bore  the 
sorrows  due  to  us."  Wheu  he  further  says,  that  the  suflferings  of  Christ  were  not  in 
all  respects,  and  considered  in  every  point  of  view,  an  exact  and  specific  quid  pro  qiw, 
as  it  regards  the  penalty  threatened  against  sin,  that  the  Saviour  did  not  suffer  a 
guUty  conscience,  or  despair,  would  be  pertinent,  had  he  first  proved  that  any  re- 
spectable body  of  Christians  held  any  such  doctrine,  or  that  a  guilty  conscience,  or 
despair,  is  an  essential  part  of  the  penalty  of  the  law. 

'  Zweck  des  Todes  Jesu.    Sec.  8.       '  Burnet  on  the  Thirty-nine  Articles.   Article  2. 


BE  MAN    ON    THE    ATONEMENT.  149 

victim  for  the  oflfender,  and  in  the  infliction  of  the  penalty  of  death 
incurred  by  the  one  upon  the  other.  4.  That  this  is  the  scrip- 
tural doctrine  on  this  subject,  is  made  still  plainer  by  the  fact, 
that  all  that  is  taught  by  saying  that  the  Messiah  bore  our  sins, 
that  our  iniquities  were  laid  upon  him,  that  he  bore  our  sorrows, 
that  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  laid  on  him,  is  expressed 
by  the  prophet  by  saying,  he  made  "his  soul  an  offering  for  sin." 
Then  an  offering  for  sin  is  one  on  whom  sin  is  laid,  who  bears 
sins,  i.  e.,  as  has  been  shown,  the  penalty  due  to  sin.  5.  This 
view  of  the  subject  is  further  confirmed  by  a  consideration  of  the 
effects  ascribed  to  these  sacrifices.  They  made  atonement ;  they 
propitiated  God  ;  they  secured  the  remission  of  the  penalty  in- 
curred. When  an  Israelite  had  committed  an  offence  by  which 
he  forfeited  his  standing  in  the  theocracy  (that  is,  the  favor  of 
God  as  his  theocratical  ruler),  he  brought  to  the  priest  the  ap- 
pointed sacrifice,  made  confession  of  his  sin,  the  victim  was  slain 
in  his  place,  and  he  was  restored  to  his  standing,  and  saved  from 
being  cut  off  from  his  people.  These  sacrifices  always  produced 
these  effects  ;  they  always  secured  the  remission  of  the  theo- 
cratical penalty  for  which  they  were  offered  and  accepted. 
Whether  they  secured  the  forgiveness  of  the  soul  before  God, 
depended  on  the  state  of  mind  of  the  offerer.  Of  themselves  they 
had  no  such  efiicacy,  since  it  was  impossible  that  the  blood  of 
bulls  and  goats  could  take  away  sin.  But  nothing  is  plainer 
from  Scripture  than  that  the  way  in  which  the  Israelites  obtained 
the  remission  of  the  civil  or  theocratical  penalties  which  they  had 
incurred,  was  intended  to  teach  us  how  sin  is  pardoned  in  the 
sight  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ. 

If,  then,  the  Bible,  according  to  the  almost  unanimous  judg- 
ment of  Christians,  teaches  that  the  idea  of  an  expiatory  sacri- 
fice is,  that  by  vicarious  punishment  justice  is  satisfied  and  sin 
forgiven  ;  if  this  was  the  view  taken  of  them  by  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, then  does  the  Bible  in  so  constantly  representing  Christ  as 
a  propitiation,  as  a  lamb,  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  expressly  teach 
that  he  bore  the  penalty  due  to  our  sins,  that  he  satisfied  divine 
justice,  and  secured,  for  all  in  whose  behalf  that  sacrifice  is  ac- 
cepted, the  pardon  of  sin  and  restoration  to  the  divine  favor. 
To  talk  of  figure  here  is  out  of  the  question.  Admit  that  the 
language  is  figurative,  the  question  is,  what  idea  was  it  intended 
to  convey  ?     Beyond  doubt  that  which  the  sacred  writers  knew 


150  B  E  II  A  N    ON     THE    ATONEMENT. 

with  certainty  wouLl  be  (ittacheil  to  it  by  their  immediate 
readers,  and  which,  in  fact,  has  been  attached  to  iL  in  all  ages 
of  the  church.'  To  tell  a  conscience-striken  Israelite  that  a 
sacrifice  was  designed  either  to  impress  his  own  mind,  or  the 
mind  of  others,  with  the  truth  that  God  is  just  or  benevolent, 
would  have  been  a  mockery.  It  was  to  him  an  atonement,  a 
propitiation,  a  vicarious  punishment,  or  it  was  nothing.  And  it 
is  no  less  a  mockery  to  tell  a  convinced  sinner  that  the  death  of 
Christ  was  designed  to  lead  him  to  repentance,  or  to  preserve 
the  good  order  of  the  universe.  Unless  the  Eedeemer  was  a 
sacrifice,  on  whom  our  sins  were  laid,  who  bore  the  penalty  we 
had  incurred,  it  is  to  such  a  sinner,  no  atonement,  and  no  ade- 
quate ground  of  confidence  toward  God.^ 

Again  :  it  is  a  part  of  the  common  faith  of  the  Church,  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  a  true  and  proper  priest ;  that  what  was  sym- 
bolical and  figurative  with  regard  to  other  priests,  is  real  as  it 
regards  him.     He  is  called  a  priest ;  it  is  proved  that  he  has  all 

'  "It  is  not  possible  for  us  to  i^reserve,"  says  Bishop  Burnet,  "any  reverence  for 
the  New  Testament,  or  the  writers  of  it,  so  far  as  to  think  them  even  honest  men, 
not  to  say  inspired  men,  if  we  can  imagine,  that  in  so  sacred  and  important  a  matter 
they  could  exceed  so  much  as  to  represent  that  a  sacrifice  which  is  not  truly  so. 
This  is  a  subject  which  will  not  bear  figures  and  amplifications ;  it  must  be  treated 
strictly,  and  with  a  just  exactness  of  expression." — Burnet  on  the  Thirty-nine  Ariides, 
the  same  page  quoted  above. 

"  "  The  Innate  sense  of  divine  justice,  which  all  men  possess,  demands  that  the 
sinner  should  receive  his  due,  that  the  stroke  he  has  given  to  the  law  should  recoil 
upon  himself  The  deeper  his  sense  of  guilt,  the  less  can  he  be  satisfied  with  mere 
pardon,  and  the  more  does  he  demand  punishment,  for  by  punishment  he  is  justified. 
Whence  do  we  derive  this  intimate  persuasion  of  God's  justice?  Not  from  without; 
because  men,  as  empirically  guided,  regard  freedom  from  suffering  as  the  highest 
good ;  it  must  therefore  be  implanted  in  our  nature  by  God  himself  The  hoUness 
of  God,  which  reveals  itself  to  the  sinner  by  the  connection  between  suffering  and 
transgression,  has,  therefore,  a  witness  for  itself  in  every  human  breast.  Hence,  on 
the  one  hand,  the  proclamation  of  pardon  and  reconciliation  could  not  satisfy  the 
conscience  of  the  sinner,  unless  his  guilt  had  been  atoned  for  by  punishment;  and  on 
the  other  hand,  divine  love  could  not  offer  its  blessing-s  to  the  sinner,  unless  holiness 
was  revealed  together  with  love.  It  was  tlierefore  necessary  that  suffering  commen- 
surate with  the  apostasy  of  man  should  be  endured,  which  men  would  impute  to 
themselves  as  their  own.  Such  was  the  suffering,  inward  and  outward,  of  the  Re- 
deemer. Two  things  were  necessary,  1.  That  those  sufferings  should  correspond  to 
(entsprcchen)  the  greatness  of  the  sin  of  mankind;  2.  That  the  sinner  could  rightly 
impute  them  to  himseff."— TnoLUCK,  Beilage  ii.,  zum  Jlebraerbrief,  p.  104.  There  is 
more  real  and  precious  trutl:,  according  to  our  judgment,  m  that  short  paragraph, 
than  in  all  Dr.  Boman's  book. 


BEMAN     ON     THE     ATONEMENT.  151 

the  qualifications  for  the  office  ;  that  he  was  divinely  appointed  ; 
that  he  performed  all  its  duties,  secures  all  its  benefits  ;  and  that 
his  priesthood  supersedes  all  others.  We  are  accordingly  com- 
manded to  come  to  him  in  the  character  of  a  priest  ;  to  commit 
our  souls  into  his  hands,  that  he  may  reconcile  us  to  God,  and 
make  intercession  for  us.  This  is  the  scriptural  method  of  rep- 
resenting the  manner  in  which  Christ  saves  us,  and  the  nature 
of  his  work.  Dr.  Beman,  in  his  chapter  on  the  "  Fact  of  the 
Atonement,"  which  is  directed  against  Socinians,  avails  himself 
of  all  the  usual  sources  of  scriptural  proof ;  and,  in  the  course 
of  the  chapter,  is  forced  to  speak  of  Christ  as  a  sacrifice  and  a 
Priest.  But  when  he  comes  to  the  exposition  of  his  views  of  the 
nature  of  the  atonement,  he  finds  it  expedient,  and  even  neces- 
sary, to  leave  that  mode  of  representation  entirely  out  of  view. 
We  hear  no  more  of  propitiating  Grod,  of  Christ  as  a  sacrifice,  of 
his  character  as  a  Priest.  It  is  now  all  moral  government,  the 
order  and  interest  of  the  universe,  symbolical  teaching,  exhibi- 
tion of  truth  and  motives.  Why  is  all  this  7  Why  does  not 
Dr.  Beman's  doctrine  admit  of  being  thrown  into  the  scriptural 
form  ?  Why  must  the  terms  sacrifice,  priest,  propitiation,  be 
discarded  when  teaching  the  nature  of  the  atonement  ?  For  the 
very  obvious  reason  that  there  is  an  entire  incongruity  between 
his  views  and  the  word  of  God.  What  has  a  sacrifice  and  priest 
to  do  with  governmental  display  ?  This  fact  alone  works  the 
condemnation  of  Dr.  Beman's  whole  theory.  His  plan  of  salva- 
tion, his  method  of  access  to  God,  is  irreconcilable  with  that  rep- 
resented in  the  Scriptures.  There  we  are  taught  that,  as  the 
Israelite  who  had  offended,  came  to  the  priest,  who  made  an 
atonement  for  him  in  the  appointed  way,  and  thus  reconciled 
him  to  God,  so  the  penitent  sinner  must  come  to  Christ  as  his 
High  Priest,  who  satisfies  the  divine  justice  by  presenting  his 
own  merits  before  God,  and  who  ever  lives  to  make  intercession 
for  him.  Would  this  representation  ever  lead  a  human  being  to 
imagine  that  Christ  merely  makes  pardon  possible — that  his 
death  was  a  symbolical  lesson  to  the  universe  ?  According  to 
Dr.  Beman's  theory,  Christ  is  not  a  priest.  We  are  under  no 
necessity  of  recognizing  him  as  such,  nor  of  committing  our- 
selves into  his  hands,  nor  of  relying  on  his  merits  and  in- 
tercession. A  mere  ])ossibility  of  salvation  for  all  men  is 
all  that  Christ  has  accomplished.     But  does  this  make  him  a 


152  BEMAN     ON     THE     ATONEMENT. 

High  Priest  in  the  scriptural  and  universally  received  sense  of 
the  term  ? 

A  third  method  by  which  the  Scriptures  teach  us  the  nature 
of  the  atonement,  is  by  express  declarations  concerning  the 
nature  of  his  sufferings  or  the  immediate  design  of  his  death.  It 
is  expressly  taught  that  his  sufferings  were  penal,  that  he  en- 
dured the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  that  he  thus  suffered  not  for 
himself  but  for  us.  This  is  a  point  about  which  there  is  so  much 
strange  misconception,  that  it  is  necessary  to  explain  the  mean- 
ing of  the  terms  here  used.  The  sufferings  of  rational  beings 
are  either  calamities,  having  no  reference  to  sin,  or  chastisement 
designed  for  the  improvement  of  the  sufferer,  or  penal  when  de- 
signed for  the  satisfaction  of  justice.  Now  what  is  meant  by  the 
language  above  used  is,  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  not 
mere  calamities  ;  neither  were  they  chastisements  (in  the  sense 
just  stated),  nor  were  they  simply  exemplary,  nor  merely  sym- 
bolical, designed  to  teach  this  or  that  truth,  but  that  they  were 
penal,  i.  e.,  designed  to  satisfy  divine  justice.  Tliis  is  the  dis- 
tinctive character  assigned  to  them  in  Scripture.  Again  :  by  the 
penalty  of  the  law  is  meant  that  suffering  which  the  law  demands 
as  a  satisfaction  to  justice.  It  is  not  any  specific  kind  or  degree 
of  suffering,  for  it  varies  both  as  to  degree  and  kind,  in  eveiy  sup- 
posable  case  of  its  infliction.  The  sufferings  of  no  two  men  that 
ever  lived,  are  precisely  alike,  in  this  world  or  the  next,  unless 
their  constitution,  temperament,  sins,  feelings,  and  circumstances 
were  precisely  alike,  which  is  absolutely  incredible.  The  objec- 
tion therefore  started  by  Socinians,  that  Christ  did  not  suffer  the 
penalty  of  the  law,  because  he  did  not  suffer  remorse,  despair,  or 
eternal  banishment  from  God,  was  answered  by  cotemporary 
theologians,  by  denying  that  those  things  entered  essentially  into 
the  penalty  of  the  law.  The  penalty  is  in  Scripture  called  death, 
which  includes  every  kind  of  evil  inflicted  by  divine  justice  in 
punishment  of  sin  ;  and  inasmuch  as  Christ  suffered  such  evil, 
and  to  such  a  degree  as  fully  satisfied  divine  justice,  he  suffered 
what  the  Scriptures  call  the  penalty  of  the  law.  It  is  not  the 
natilre,  but  the  relation  of  sufferings  to  the  law,  which  gives 
them  their  distinctive  character.  What  desrree  of  sufferins:  the 
law  demands,  as  it  varies  in  every  specific  case,  God  only  can 
determine.  The  sufferings  of  Christ  were  unutterably  great ; 
still  with  one  voice,  Papists,  Lutherans,  and  Reformed,  rebutted 


BEMAN     ON    THE    ATONEMENT.  l53 

the  objection  of  Socinus,  that  the  transient  sufferings  of  one  man 
could  not  be  equivalent  to  the  sufferings  due  to  the  sins  of  men, 
by  referring,  not  to  the  degree  of  the  Saviour's  anguish,  as  equal  to 
the  misery  due  to  all  for  whom  he  died,  but  to  the  infinite  dig- 
nity of  his  person.  It  was  the  Lord  of  glory  who  was  crucified. 
As  the  bodily  sufferings  of  a  man  are  referred  to  his  whole  person, 
so  the  Scriptures  refer  the  sufferings  of  Christ's  human  nature 
to  his  whole  person.  And  he  was  a  divine,  and  not  a  human 
person  ;  but  a  divine  person  with  a  human  nature.  This  is  an 
awful  subject,  on  which  all  irreverent  speculation  must  be  very 
offensive  to  Grod.  Let  it  be  enough  to  say  with  the  Scriptures 
that  Christ  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  our  stead,  and  that 
the  penalty  of  the  law  was  that  kind  and  amount  of  suffering, 
which,  from  such  a  person,  was  a  full  satisfaction  to  the  divine 
justice.  All  that  our  standards  say  on  this  point,  they  say 
wisely,  viz.,  that  the  Saviour  endured  the  miseries  of  this  life, 
the  wrath  of  God,  the  accursed  death  of  the  cross,  and  continued 
under  the  power  of  death  for  a  time.  This  was  the  penalty  of 
the  law  ;  for  the  wi-ath  of  God,  however  expressed,  constitutes 
that  penalty,  in  its  strictest  and  highest  sense. 

That  the  Scriptures  do  teach  that  Christ's  sufferings  were 
penal,  has  already  been  proved  from  those  passages  in  which  he 
is  said  to  bear  our  sins,  that  our  iniquities  were  laid  upon  him, 
that  he  suffered  the  chastisement  of  our  peace,  and  that  as  a 
sacrifice  he  endured  the  death  which  we  had  incurred.  The 
same  truth  is  expressed  still  more  explicitly  in  Gal.  iii.  13.  The 
apostle  thus  argues.  The  law  pronounces  accursed  all  who  do 
not  obey  every  command ;  no  man  has  ever  rendered  this  perfect 
obedience,  therefore  all  men  are  under  the  curse  ;  but  Christ  has 
redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  having  been  made  a  curse 
for  us.  There  can  be  no  doubt  what  the  apostle  means,  when 
he  says,  that  all  men  are  under  the  curse  ;  nor  when  he  says, 
cursed  is  every  one  who  continuetli  not  in  all  things  written  in 
the  law  to  do  them  ;  neither  can  it  be  doubted  what  he  means 
when  he  says,  Christ  was  made  a  curse.  The  three  expressions,  un- 
der the  curse,  accursed,  and  made  a  curse,  cannot  mean  essen- 
tially different  things.  If  the  former  mean  that  we  were  exposed  to 
the  penalty,  the  latter  must  mean  that  Christ  endured  the  penalty. 
He  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  by  bearing  it  in  our  stead.' 

'  In  this  interpretation  every  modern  commentator  of  whom  we  have  any  knowl- 


A^i  BEMAN     OX     THE     AT0NEMEN1. 

To  the  same  effect  the  apostle  speaks  in  Rom.  viii.  3.  What 
the  law  could  not  do  {t.  e.,  effect  the  justification  of  men)  in  that 
it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  that  God  did,  having  sent  his  Son 
in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin,  or  as  a  sin-offering,  he 
condemned,  i.  e.,  punished  sin,  in  the  flesh,  i.  e.,  in  him,  who  was 
clothed  in  our  nature.  This  passage  agTces,  as  to  the  principal 
point,  with  the  one  cited  from  Galatians,  The  sentence  which  we 
had  incurred  was  carried  into  effect  upon  the  Redeemer,  in  order 
that  we  might  he  delivered  from  the  law  under  which  we  were 
justly  condemned.  In  2  Cor.  v.  21,  the  apostle,  in  urging  men 
to  be  reconciled  to  God,  presents  the  nature  and  mode  of  the 
atonement,  as  the  ground  of  his  exhortation.  "  For  he  hath 
made  him  to  he  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be- 
come the  righteousness  of  God  in  him."  The  only  sense  in  which 
Christ,  who  was  free  from  all  sin,  could  be  made  sin,  was  by 
having  our  sins  laid  upon  him  ;  and  the  only  way  in  which  our 
sins  could  be  laid  upon  him,  was  by  his  so  assuming  our  place 
as  to  endure,  in  our  stead,  the  penalty  we  had  incurred,  "  God 
made  him  to  be  sin,"  says  De  Wette,  "in  that  he  laid  on  him 
the  punishment  of  sin."  Here  again  we  have  precisely  the  same 
doctrine,  taught  under  all  the  other  forms  of  expression  already 
considered.  Christ  was  made  sin,  as  we  in  him  are  made  right- 
eous men ;  we  are  justified,  he  was  condemned  ;  we  are  freed 
from  the  penalty,  he  endured  it ;  he  was  treated  as  justice  re- 
quired the  sinner  to  be  treated;  we  are  treated  according  to  his 
merits  and  not  our  own  deserts. 

Fourthly,  there  are  various  other  forms  under  which  the  Scrip- 
tures set  forth  the  nature  of  Christ's  death,  which  the  limits  of 
a  review  forbid  our  considering.  He  has  redeemed  us  ;  he  has 
purchased  us  ;  he  gave  himself  as  a  ransom,  etc.  It  is  readily 
admitted  that  all  these  terms  are  often  used  in  a  ^vide  sense,  to 
express  the  general  idea  of  dehverance  without  reference  to  the 
mode  by  which  that  deliverance  is  effected.  It  cannot,  however, 
be  denied  that  they  properly  express  deliverance  by  purchase, 

ed^e  concurs,  as  for  example,  Koppe,  Flatt,  "Winer,  Usteri,  Matthias,  Rlickert,  De 
Wette.  "What  the  apostle  adds  in  the  next  verse,  '•  For  it  is  written,  cursed  is  every 
one  that  is  hung  upon  a  tree,"  is  evidently  intended  to  justify  from  Scripture  the  use 
of  the  word  curse.  Those  publicly  exposed  as  suffering  the  sentence  of  the  law,  are 
called  cursed;  hence,  since  Christ,  though  perfectly  holy,  did  bear  the  sentence  of  tlie 
law,  the  word  may  be  properly  appHed  to  him. 


B  E  M  A  N    ON     THE     ATONEMENT,  155 

t.  e.,  by  the  payment  of  what  is  considered  equivalent  to  the 
person  or  thing  redeemed.  In  the  Bible  it  is  not  simply  said  that 
Christ  has  delivered  us  ;  nor  is  it  said  he  delivered  us  by  power, 
nor  by  teaching,  but  by  his  death,  by  his  own  precious  blood,  by 
giving  himself,  by  being  made  a  curse  for  us.  Such  representa- 
tions cannot  fail  to  convey  the  idea  of  a  redemption  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  term,  and  therefore  teach  the  true  nature  of  the 
atonement.  We  are  redeemed  ;  that  which  was  given  for  us  was 
of  infinite  value. 

If  the  Scriptures  thus  teach  that  Christ  saves  us  by  bearing 
our  sins,  or  being  made  a  sin-oifering  in  our  place,  then  the  more 
general  expressions,  such  as  he  died  for  us,  he  gave  himself  for 
us,  we  are  saved  by  his  death,  his  blood,  his  cross,  and  others  of 
a  similar  kind,  are  all  to  be  understood  in  accordance  with  those 
more  explicit  statements.  To  the  pious  reader  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, therefore,  the  precious  truth  that  Christ  died  as  our 
substitute,  enduring  in  his  own  person  the  death  which  we  had 
incurred,  redeeming  us  from  the  curse  by  being  made  a  curse  for 
us,  meets  him  upon  almost  every  page,  and  confirms  his  con- 
fidence in  the  truth,  and  exalts  his  estimate  of  its  value,  by  this 
frequency  of  repetition  and  variety  of  statement. 

Fifthly,  there  is  still  another  consideration  in  proof  of  the  un- 
scriptural  character  of  Dr.  Beman's  theory,  which  is  too  im- 
portant to  be  overlooked.  The  apostle,  in  unfolding  the  plan  of 
redemption  proceeds  on  the  assumption  that  men  are  under  a 
law  or  covenant  which  demands  perfect  obedience,  and  which 
threatens  death  in  case  of  transgression,  He  then  shows  that 
no  man,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  can  fulfill  the  conditions  of  that 
covenant,  or  so  obey  the  law  as  to  claim  justification  on  the 
ground  of  his  own  righteousness.  Still,  as  this  law  is  perfectly 
righteous,  it  cannot  be  arbitrarily  set  aside.  What  then  was  to 
be  done  ?  What  hope  can  there  be  for  the  salvation  of  sinners  ? 
The  apostle  answers  by  saying,  that  what  the  law  could  not  do 
(that  is,  save  men),  God  has  accomplished  by  the  mission  of  his 
Son.  But  how  does  the  Son  save  us  ?  This  is  the  very  question 
before  us.  It  relates  to  the  nature  of  tlie  work  of  Christ,  which 
Dr.  Beman  has  undertaken  to  discuss.  Paul's  answer  to  that 
question  is,  that  Christ  saves  us  by  being  made  under  the  law 
and  fulfilling  all  its  demands.  He  fulfilled  all  righteousness,  he 
knew  no  sin,  he  was  holy,  harmless,  and  separate  from  sinners.   He 


156  BE  MAN     ON     THE     ATONEMENT. 

bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,  and  thus  endured  the 
death  which  the  law  threatened  against  sin.  He  has  thus 
redeemed  us  from  the  law  ;  that,  is,  we  are  no  longer  under 
obligation  to  satisfy,  in  our  own  person,  its  demands,  in  order  to 
our  justification.  The  perfect  righteousness  of  Christ  is  offered 
as  the  ground  of  justification,  and  all  who  accept  of  that  right- 
eousness by  faith,  have  it  so  imputed  to  them,  that  they  can 
plead  it  as  their  own,  and  God  has  promised  to  accept  it  to  their 
salvation.  We  can  hardly  persuade  ourselves  that  any  ordinary 
reader  of  the  Bible  can  deny  that  this  is  a  correct  representation 
of  the  manner  in  which  Paul  preached  the  gospel.  It  is  the 
burden  of  all  his  writings,  it  is  the  gospel  itself  as  it  lay  in  his 
mind,  and  as  he  presented  it  to  others.  It  is  the  whole  subject 
of  the  first  eight  chapters  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Komans,  and  of 
all  the  doctrinal  part  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  In  the 
former  of  these  epistles,  he  shows  that  there  are  but  two  methods 
of  justification,  the  one  by  our  own  righteousness,  and  the  other  by 
the  righteousness  of  God.  Having  shown  that  no  man  has  or  can 
have  an  adequate  righteousness  of  his  own,  he  shows  that  the 
gospel  reveals  the  righteousness  of  God,  that  is,  the  righteousness 
which  is  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  which  is  upon  all  them 
that  believe.  This  righteousness  is  so  complete,  that  God  is  just 
in  justifying  those  who  have  the  faith  by  which  it  is  received  and 
appropriated.  He  afterwards  illustrates  this  great  doctrine  of 
imputed  righteousness  by  a  reference  to  the  case  of  Adam,  and 
shows  that  as  on  account  of  the  offence  of  one  man  a  sentence  of 
condemnation  passed  on  all  men,  so,  on  account  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  one  man,  the  free  gift  of  justification  has  come  upon  all. 
As  by  the  disobedience  of  one  the  many  were  made  sinners,  so 
by  the  obedience  of  one  the  many  are  made  righteous.  It  is 
involved  in  all  this,  that  we  are  no  longer  under  the  law,  no 
longer  subject  to  its  demand  of  a  perfect  personal  righteousness, 
but  justified  by  a  righteousness  that  satisfies  its  widest  claims. 
Hence  the  apostle  so  frequently  asserts,  ye  are  not  under  the  law, 
ye  are  free  from  the  law.  But  how  ?  not  by  abrogating  the  law, 
or  by  dispensing  with  its  righteous  claims,  but  legally,  as  a 
woman  is  free  from  her  husband,  not  by  deserting  him,  not  by 
repudiating  his  authority,  but  by  his  ceasing  to  have  any  claim 
to  her,  which  continues  only  so  long  as  he  lives.  So  we  are  freed 
from  the  law  by  the  body  of  Christ,  i.  e.,  by  his  death.      He  was 


BEMAN    ON    THE    ATONEMENT,  157 

made  under  the  law  that  he  might  redeem  them  who  were  under 
the  law  ;  he  hath  redeemed  us  from  its  curse  by  being  made  a 
curse  for  us  ;  he  has  taken  away  the  hand-writing  which  was 
against  us,  nailing  it  to  the  cross.  There  is,  therefore,  now  no 
condemnation  to  those  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  because  we  are 
by  this  gospel  freed  from  the  law  and  its  condemnation.  Hence 
Paul  teaches  that  if  righteousness  (that  is,  what  satisfies  the 
demands  of  the  law)  could  have  come  in  any  other  way,  Christ 
is  dead  in  vain.  How  exclusively  this  righteousness  of  Christ 
was  the  ground  of  the  apostle's  personal  confidence,  is  plain  from 
his  pregnant  declarations  to  the  PhilipiDians,  that  he  counted  all 
things  but  dung,  that  he  might  win  Christ,  and  be  found  in  him  ; 
not  having  his  own  righteousness,  but  that  which  is  through  the 
faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith. 

With  this  representation  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  Dr.  Beman's 
theory  is  utterly  irreconcilable.  According  to  his  theory,  the 
demands  of  the  law  have  not  been  satisfied.  The  relation  of  the 
sinner  to  the  curse  which  this  law  pronounces  against  the  trans- 
gressor, is  legally — not  evangelically — just  the  same  that  it  was 
without  an  atonement.  "  The  law  has  the  same  demand  upon 
him,  and  utters  the  same  denunciation  of  wrath  against  him. 
The  law  or  justice,  that  is  distributive  justice,  as  expressed  in 
the  law,  has  received  no  satisfaction  at  all." — P.  133,  What 
then  has  Christ's  atonement  done  for  us  ?  He  has  simply 
opened  the  way  for  pardon.  "All  that  the  atonement  has  done 
for  the  sinner,"  says  Dr.  Beman,  "is  to  place  him  within  the 
reach  of  pardon."— P,  137.  "  The  way  is  now  open.  Mercy  can 
now  operate.  The  door  is  open." — P.  106,  The  atonement 
"  was  required  and  made  in  order  to  open  a  consistent  way  for 
the  publication  of  pardon,  or  for  the  exercise  of  grace  to  sinners," 
— P,  124, 

This  theory  directly  contradicts  the  apostle's  doctrine  ;  1.  Be- 
cause he  teaches  that  Christ  was  made  under  the  law  for  the 
purpose  of  redeeming  them  that  are  under  the  law,  and  that  he 
was  made  a  curse  for  us.  We  are  therefore  delivered  from  the 
law,  as  a  covenant  of  works,  and  are  not  subject  to  its  demands 
and  its  curse  when  united  to  him.  2.  Because  it  virtually  denies 
that  Christ  wrought  out  any  righteousness  which  is  the  ground 
of  our  justification.  He  merely  makes  pardon  possible,  whereas 
Paul  says  that  by  his  obedience  we  are  made  righteous,  that  we 


158  BEMAN     ON    THE     ATONEMENT, 

become  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him.  On  this  new  theory, 
the  language  of  the  apostle,  when  he  speaks  of  not  having  his 
own  righteousness,  but  the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith  of 
Jesus  Christ,  is  unintelligible.  3.  It  destroys  the  very  nature  of 
justification,  which  is  "an  act  of  God's  free  grace,  wherein  he 
pardoneth  all  our  sins,  and  accepteth  us  as  righteous  in  his  sight 
only  for  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  imputed  unto  us  and  receiv- 
ed by  faith  alone."  But  according  to  this  theory  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  justification  ;  we  are  merely  pardoned.  In  Scripture, 
however,  and  in  all  languages,  the  ideas  of  pardon  and  justification 
are  distinct  and  in  a  measure  opposite.'  If  we  are  justified,  we 
are  declared  righteous.  That  is,  it  is  declared  that,  as  concerns 
us,  on  some  ground  or  for  some  reason,  the  law  is  satisfied  ;  and 
that  reason  Paul  says  must  either  be  our  own  righteousness,  or 
the  righteousness  of  Christ.  Dr.  Beman's  theory  admits  of  no 
such  idea  of  justification.  The  sinner  is  merely  forgiven,  because 
the  death  of  Christ  prevents  such  forgiveness  doing  any  harm. 
This  is  not  what  the  Bible  teaches  when  it  speaks  of  our  being 
made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  Christ ;  or  of -his  imputing 
righteousness  to  us  ;  or  of  our  receiving  the  gift  of  righteousness. 
This  is  not  what  the  convinced  sinner  needs,  to  whom,  not  mere 
pardon,  but  justification  on  the  ground  of  a  righteousness  which, 
though  not  his  own,  is  his,  as  wrought  out  for  him  and  bestowed 
by  the  free  gift  of  God,  is  necessary  to  peace  with  God. — 
Rom.  V.  1. 

4.  It  destroys  the  nature  of  justifying  faith,  and  deranges  the 
whole  plan  of  salvation.  In  accordance  with  the  Scriptures. 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ  is,  in  our  standards,  declared  to  be  a  saving 
grace,  whereby  we  receive  and  rest  upon  him  alone  for  salvation, 
as  he  is  offered  to  us  in  the  gospel.  This  is  perfectly  natural  and 
intelligible,  if  Christ  is  our  righteousness.  If  his  work  of  obedi- 
ence and  death  is  the  sole  ground  of  justification  before  God, 
then  wc  understand  what  the  Bible  means  by  believing  upon 
Christ,  putting  our  trust  in  him,  being  found  in  him  ;  then  the 
phrase,  faith  of  Christ,  which  so  often  occurs  as  expressing  the 
idea  of  a  faith  of  which  he  is  the  object,  has  its  appropriate 
meaning.  Then,  too,  we  understand  what  is  meant  by  coming 
to  Christ,  receiving  Christ,  putting  on  Christ,  being  in  Christ. 

•  "  The  word  (hKatovv,"  says  Do  Wctte,  "  means  not  merely  negatively  to  pardon ;  but 
also  affirmatively  to  declare  righteous." 


B  E  M  A  N    ON    THE     ATONEMENT.  159 

Upon  T)r.  Beman's  tlieoiy,  however,  all  this  is  well-nigh  unin- 
telligible. We  admit  that  a  vague  sense  may  be  put  on  these 
expressions  on  any  theory  of  the  atonement,  even  that  of  the 
Socinians.  If  the  death  of  Christ  is  necessary  to  salvation, 
either,  as  they  say,  by  revealing  the  love  of  God,  or  as  Dr. 
Beman  says,  by  revealing  his  regard  for  law,  then  to  believe  in 
Christ,  or  to  receive  Christ,  might  be  said  to  mean,  to  believe  the 
truth  that  without  the  revelation  made  by  his  death,  God  would 
not  forgive  sin.  But  how  far  is  this  from  being  the  full  and 
natural  import  of  the  terms  !  Who  would  ever  express  mere 
acquiescence  in  the  fact  that  Christ  has  made  salvation  possible, 
by  saying,  "  I  would  be  found  in  him  not  having  mine  own 
righteousness,  but  the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus 
Christ  ?"  The  fact  is,  the  Socinian  view  is  in  some  respects 
much  easier  reconciled  with  Scripture  than  that  of  Dr.  Beman. 
The  passage  just  quoted,  for  example,  might  have  this  meaning, 
viz.,  we  must  have,  not  the  moral  excellence  which  the  law  can 
give,  but  that  inward  righteousness  of  which  faith  in  Christ  is 
the  source.  This  would  have  some  plausibility,  but  what  "  the 
righteousness  which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ "  can  mean,  as 
opposed  to  our  own  righteousness,  on  Dr.  Beman's  ground,  it  is 
hard  to  conceive. 

Again  :  according  to  the  Bible  and  the  common  doctrine  of 
the  church,  when  a  sinner  is  convinced  of  his  sin  and  misery,  of 
his  entire  unwortliiness  in  the  sight  of  God,  he  is  to  be  directed 
to  renounce  all  dependence  upon  himself,  and  to  believe  in 
Christ,  that  is,  to  place  all  his  confidence  in  him.  But  if  Christ 
has  only  made  salvation  possible,  if  he  has  merely  brought  the 
sinner  within  the  reach  of  mercy,  this  is  a  most  unnatural  direc- 
tion. What  has  the  sinner  to  come  to  Christ  for  ?  Why  should 
he  be  directed  to  receive  or  submit  to  the  righteousness  of  God  ? 
Christ  has  nothing  to  do  with  him.  He  has  made  salvation  pos- 
sible, and  his  work  is  done  ;  what  the  sinner  has  to  do  is  to 
submit  to  God.  The  way  is  open,  let  him  lay  aside  his  rebellion, 
and  begin  to  love  and  serve  his  Maker.  Such  are  the  directions 
which  this  theory  would  lead  its,  advocates  to  give  to  those  who 
are  convinced  of  their  sin  and  danger.  This  is  not  a  mere 
imagination  ;  such  are  the  directions,  commonly  and  character- 
istically given  by  those  who  adopt  Dr.  Beman's  view  of  the 
atonement.     Christ  disappears  in  a  great  measure  from  his  own 


160  BEMAN    ON    THE    ATONEMENT. 

gospel.  You  may  take  up  volume  after  volume  of  their  sermons, 
and  you  will  find  excellent  discourses  upon  sin,  obligation, 
moral  government,  regeneration,  divine  sovereignty,  etc.,  but  the 
cross  is  comparatively  kept  out  of  view.  Christ  has  no  immediate 
work  in  the  sinner's  salvation  ;  and  accordingly  the  common 
directions  to  those  who  ask  what  they  must  do  to  be  saved,  are, 
submit  to  God,  choose  him  and  his  service,  or  something  of  sim- 
ilar import.  To  such  an  extreme  has  this  been  carried,  by  some 
whose  logical  consistency  has  overcome  the  influence  of  scriptural 
language  and  traditionary  instruction,  that  they  have  not  hesi- 
tated to  say  that  the  command,  Believe  in  Christ,  is  obsolete.  It 
was  the  proper  test  of  submission  in  the  apostolic  age,  but  in 
our  day,  when  all  men  recognise  Christ  as  the  Messiah,  it  is 
altogether  inappropriate.  We  doubt  not  that  thousands  who 
agree  substantially  with  Dr.  Beman,  would  be  shocked  at  this 
language  ;  nevertheless  it  is  the  legitimate  consequence  of  his 
theory.  If  the  atonement  is  a  mere  governmental  display,  a 
mere  symbolical  method  of  instruction,  then  the  command  to 
believe  in  Christ,  to  come  to  him,  to  trust  in  him  and  his  right- 
eousness, is  not  the  language  in  which  sinners  should  be  address- 
ed. It  does  not  inform  them  of  the  specific  thing  which  they 
must  do  in  order  to  be  saved.  Christ  has  opened  the  door,  their 
business  is  now  immediately  with  God. 

Again  :  Can  any  reader  of  the  Bible,  can  any  Christian  at 
least,  doubt  that  union  with  Christ  was  to  the  apostles  one  of 
the  most  important  and  dearest  of  all  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel  ? 
a  doctrine  which  lay  at  the  root  of  all  the  other  doctrines  of 
redemption,  the  foundation  of  their  hopes,  the  source  of  their 
spiritual  life  ?  But  according  to  the  theory  that  Christ's  death 
is  a  mere  symbolical  method  of  instruction,  an  expression  of  a 
great  truth,  that  it  merely  opens  a  way  for  mercy,  what  can 
union  with  Christ  mean  ?  In  what  sense  are  we  in  him  ?  How 
are  we  his  members  ?  How  is  it  that  we  die,  that  we  live,  that 
we  are  to  rise  from  the  dead  in  virtue  of  that  union  ?  What  is 
meant  by  living  by  faith  of  which  he  is  the  object  ?  The  fact  is, 
this  theory  changes  the  whole  nature  of  the  gospel ;  ever}' thing  is 
altered  ;  the  nature  of  faith,  the  nature  of  justification,  the  mode 
of  access  to  God,  our  relation  to  Christ,  the  inward  exercises  of 
communion  with  him,  so  that  the  Christian  feels  disposed  to  say 


BE  MAN     ON    THE    ATONEMENT.  161 

with  Mary,  "  They  have  taken  away  my  Lord,  and  I  know  not 
where  they  have  laid  him." 

We  do  not  believe  there  is  truth  enough  in  this  theory  to  sus- 
tain the  life  of  religion  in  any  man's  heart.  We  have  no  idea 
that  Dr.  Beman,  Dr.  Cox,  or  any  good  man  really  lives  by  it. 
The  truth,  as  it  is  practically  embraced  and  appropriated  by  the 
soul  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  truth  in  the 
form  in  which  it  is  presented  in  the  Bible,  and  not  as  expressed 
in  abstract  propositions.  It  is  therefore  very  possible  for  a  man 
to  adopt  theoretically  such  an  abstract  statement  of  a  scriptural 
doctrine,  as  really  denies  its  nature  and  destroys  its  power,  and 
yet  that  same  man  may  receive  the  truth  for  his  own  salvation  as 
it  is  revealed  in  the  Bible.  We  see  daily  instances  of  this  in  the 
case  of  Arminians,  who  professedly  reject  doctrines,  which  are 
really  included  in  every  prayer  they  utter.  In  like  manner  we 
believe  that  many  who  profess  to  adopt  the  theory,  that  the 
death  of  Christ  merely  opens  the  way  for  mercy,  that  it  is  only 
the  symbolical  expression  of  a  moral  truth,  deny  that  theory  in 
every  act  of  faith  they  exercise  in  Jesus  Christ.  Still  the  theory 
is  none  the  less  false  and  dangerous.  It  has  its  effect,  and  just 
so  far  as  it  operates,  it  tends  to  destroy  all  true  religion.  Its 
tendency,  especially  in  private  Christians,  is  counteracted  by 
reading  the  Scriptures  and  by  the  teaching  of  the  Spirit.  But 
the  evil  of  the  constant  inculcation  of  error  and  misrepresenta- 
tion of  truth,  cannot  easily  be  exaggerated.  The  particular 
error  concerning  the  nature  of  the  atonement  inculcated  in  this 
book,  has,  we  believe,  done  more  to  corrupt  religion,  and  to  pro- 
mote Socinianism,  than  any  other  of  the  vaunted  improvements 
of  American  theology,  which,  after  all,  are  but  feeble  reproduc- 
tions of  the  rejected  errors  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries. 

The  doctrine  of  atonement  for  which  we  contend  as  the  dis- 
tinguishing and  essential  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  is,  1.  That  sin 
for  its  own  sake  deserves  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God.  2.  That 
God  is  just,  immutably  determined,  from  the  excellence  of  his 
nature,  to  punish  sin.  3.  That  out  of  his  sovereign  and  infinite 
love,  in  order  to  redeem  us  from  the  law,  that  is,  from  its 
demands  and  curse,  he  sent  his  own  Son,  in  the  likeness  of  sinful 
flesh,  who  in  his  own  person  fulfilled  these  demands,  and  endured 
that  curse  in  our  stead.      That  his  ris-hteousness,  or  merit,  thus 

11 


162  BEMAN     ON     THE     ATONEMENT. 

wrought  out,  is  imputed  to  every  one  that  believes,  to  his  justifi- 
cation before  God.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  church  catholic, 
overlaid,  corrupted,  and  made  of  none  effect,  in  the  church  of 
Rome  ;  disembarrassed,  reproduced,  and  exhibited  as  the  doctrine 
of  the  Reformation  ;  in  manifold  forms  since  opposed  or  rejected, 
but  ever  virtually  eml^raced  and  trusted  in  by  every  sincere  child 
of  God. 

What  then  are  the  objections  to  this  great  doctrine  ?  The 
first  objection  urged  by  Dr.  Beman  is,  that  it  involves  "  a  trans- 
fer of  moral  character  between  Christ  and  those  for  whom  he 
died.  Christ  could  not  be  punished  on  legal  principles,  until  he 
was  guilty  in  the  eye  of  the  law  ;  and  his  people  could  not  be 
justified  on  legal  principles,  till  its  penalty  was  literally  inflicted. 
This  transfer  of  character,  so  as  to  render  Jesus  Christ  the  sinner, 
and  the  soul  for  whom  he  died,  innocent,  appears  to  us  without 
foundation  in  reason  and  Scripture."  The  objection  then  is,  that 
the  doctrine  that  Christ  endured  the  punishment  of  our  sins,  and 
that  we  are  justified  by  the  imputation  of  his  righteousness,  in- 
volves such  a  transfer  of  moral  character  as  to  render  Jesus  Christ 
a  sinner,  and  those  for  whom  he  died  innocent.  This  objection 
is  directed,  not  against  this  or  that  individual  writer,  but  against 
whole  bodies  and  classes  of  men,  for  Dr.  Beman  over  and  over 
asserts  that  there  are  but  two  views  of  the  atonement,  the  one 
against  which  he  brings  this  and  other  objections,  and  his  own 
governmental  theory.  We  have  already  shown  that  the  former  is 
the  common  doctrine  of  all  the  churches  of  the  Reformation.  It 
is  against  them,  therefore,  this  objection  is  brought.  Our  first 
remark  on  it  is,  that  it  is  the  old,  often  repeated,  and  often  re- 
futed slander  of  Socinians  and  Papists,  the  latter  corrupting  and 
denying  the  doctrine  of  their  own  church.  Our  second  remark 
is,  that  this  is  a  gross,  shocking,  and,  we  are  constrained  in  con- 
science to  add,  wicked  representation.  Dr.  Beman  betrays  his 
want  of  faith  in  the  truth  of  the  accusation,  though  he  makes  it 
against  hundreds  and  thousands  of  his  brethren,  by  saying  that 
a  doctrine  which  represents  Jesus  Christ  as  a  sinner,  "  appears 
to  us  without  foundation  in  reason  and  Scripture  \"  Shocking 
blasphemy  appears  to  us  loitliout  foundation!  What  man  who 
believed  what  he  said  could  utter  such  language  ?  Is  this  the 
way  in  which  a  doctrine  which  represents  the  Son  of  God  a  sinner, 
is  to  be  spoken  of  ?    No,  Dr.  Beman  knew  fuU  well,  that  the  doc- 


BE  MAN    ON     THE    ATONEMENT.  163" 

trine  he  writes  against,  includes  no  such  blasphemy.  He  cannot 
be  so  grossly  ignorant  as  not  to  know  that  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  imputation  and  the  infusion  of  sin  and  righteousness, 
is  one  for  which  the  churches  of  the  Keformation  contended  as 
for  their  Kfe  ;  and  that  the  distinction  is  plain,  intelligible, 
scriptural,  and  unavoidable — one  which  he  and  all  other  men 
do  make,  and  must  make.  When  the  prophet  says,  "  the  son 
shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father,"  does  Dr.  Beman  pre- 
tend to  believe  that  he  means  that  the  moral  character  of  the 
father  shall  not  be  transferred  to  the  son  ?  that  the  sin  of  the 
one  shall  not  be  infused  into  the  other  ?  Why  then  does  he 
pretend  to  believe  (for  we  hope  it  is  mere  pretence),  that  when 
we  say,  our  sins  were  laid  on  Christ,  we  teach  that  our  moral 
character  was  so  transferred  to  him  as  to  render  him  a  sinner  ? 
Our  third  remark  is,  that  the  objection  is  glaringly  unjust.  We 
say,  in  the  very  language  of  Scripture,  that  Christ  bore  our  sins. 
We  tell  in  what  sense  we  understand  that  language,  viz.,  that  it 
means,  not  that  Christ  was  rendered  in  a  moral  character  a 
sinner,  which  is  blasphemy,  but  that  he  bore  the  punishment  of 
our  sins,  which  is  the  universally  admitted  meaning  of  the  Scrip- 
tural phrase.  We  say  further,  that  by  punishment  we  mean 
sufferings  judicially  inflicted  as  a  satisfaction  to  justice.  These 
things  are  so  plain,  they  have  been  so  often  repeated,  they  so 
evidently  do  not  involve  the  shocking  doctrine  charged  on  those 
who  use  this  language,  that  we  can  have  little  respect  for  the 
man  who  can  gravely  and  tamely  repeat  the  charge,  to  the  pre- 
judice of  the  truth,  and  to  the  wounding  of  liis  brethren. 

Dr.  Beman's  second  objection  is,  that  the  system  he  opposes 
destroys  "  all  mercy  in  Grod  the  Father,  in  the  salvation  of 
sinners,  because  it  represents  God  as  totally  disinclined  to  the 
exercise  of  compassion,  till  every  jot  and  tittle  of  the  legal  curse 
was  inflicted.  On  the  same  principle,  grace  or  pardon  in  the  re- 
lease of  the  sinner  from  future  punishment  would  be  out  of  the 
question  ;  for  what  grace,  or  pardon,  or  favor,  can  there  be  in 
the  discharge  of  a  debtor  whose  demand  (debt  ?)  has  been  can- 
celled to  the  uttermost  farthing  ?" — P.  122.  This  objection  is  the 
staple  of  his  book.  On  page  100  he  represents  us  as  teaching 
that  "  the  Son  of  Grod  endured  the  exact  amount  of  suffering  due, 
on  legal  principles,  to  sinners."  On  page  107,  he  says,  "  The 
amount  of  Christ's  sufferings  must  consequently  be  the  same  as 


164  BEMAN    ON    THE    ATONEMENT, 

the  aggregate  sufferings  included  in  the  eternal  condemnation 
of  all  those  who  are  saved  by  his  merit.  ■*  *  *  The  agonies 
which  he  suffered  were  equal  to"  the  endless  misery  of  all  those 
who  will  be  saved  by  his  interposition  in  their  behalf."  On  page 
146,  he  says,  "  If  one  soul  were  to  be  saved  by  the  atonement, 
Christ  must  sustain  an  amount  of  suffering  equal  to  that  involved 
in  the  eternal  condemnation  of  that  one  soul ;  and  if  a  thousand 
were  to  be  saved  a  thousand  times  that  amount,«and  in  the  same 
proportion  for  any  greater  number  who  are  to  be  rescued  from 
perdition  and  exalted  to  glory.  To  this  scheme  there  are  in- 
surmountable objections."  True  enough,  but  who  hold  that 
scheme  ?  Dr.  Beman  attributes  it  to  all  who  believe  in  the 
atonement,  and  do  not  adopt  his  scheme,  for  he  says  there  are 
but  two.  This  doctrine,  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  amounted 
to  the  ao-ffreo-ate  sufferinsis  of  those  who  are  to  be  saved,  that  he 
endured  just  so  much  for  so  many,  is  not  fount!  in  any  confession 
of  the  Protestant  churches,  nor  in  the  writings  of  any  standard 
theologian,  nor  in  the  recognized  authorities  of  any  church  of 
which  we  have  any  knowledge.  The  whole  objection  is  a  gross 
and  inexcusable  misrepresentation.*  In  a  more  moderate  form 
it  was  brought  forward  by  the  Socinians,  and  repelled  by  the 
writers  of  that  and  subsequent  ages.  De  Moor  is  generally  rec- 
ognized as  the  theologian  of  most  authority  among  the  churches 
of  Holland,  and  Turrettin  is  admitted  to  be  one  of  the  strictest 
of  the  Geneva  school,  and  they  both  answer  this  calumny,  by 
denying  that,  according  to  their  doctrine,  there  is  any  necessity 
for  the  assumption  that  Christ's  sufferings  were  equal  to  the 
sufferings  of  all  his  people.  Thus  Turrettin,  after  quoting  at 
length  the  objection  from  Socinus,  answers  it,  1.  By  showing  that 
the  Scriptures  teach  that  the  one  death  of  Christ  was  a  satisfac- 
tion for  all ;  that  as  by  the  one  sin  of  Adam  many  were  made 
sinners,  so  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ  many  are  made  right- 
eous. 2.  By  insisting  on  the  distinction  between  pecuniary  and 
penal  satisfaction.  A  piece  of  money  in  the  hand  of  a  king  is  of 
no  more  value  than  in  the  hands  of  a  peasant,  but  the  life  of 
a  king  is  of  more  value  than  that  of  a  peasant,  and  one  cont- 

*  There  was  a  little  anonymous  work  called  Gethsemane,  republished  some  years 
ago  in  this  country,  which  taught  this  quid  j^ro  quo  system  of  the  atonement.  But 
wo  do  not  know  a  single  man,  now  of  our  church,  who  adopted  the  sentiments  of  that 
work. 


BEMAN    ON    THE    ATONEMENT.  165 

mander  is  often  exchanged  for  many  soldiers.  3.  He  says  the 
adversaries  forget  that  Christ  is  God,  and  therefore  though  his 
sufferings  could  not  be  infinite,  as  they  were  endured  by  his  finite 
nature,  they  were  of  infinite  value  in  virtue  of  the  infinite 
dignity  of  his  person.  Sin,  he  says,  is  an  infinite  evil,  because 
committed  against  an  infinite  Grod,  through  the  act  of  a  finite 
nature.  So  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  though  endured  in  his  human 
nature,  are  of  infinite  value  from  the  dignity  of  his  person.* 

Dr.  Beman,  under  tliis  head,  frequently  objects  that  we  degrade 
the  atonement  into  a  mere  commercial  transaction,  a  payment 
of  a  debt,  which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  excludes  the  idea 
of  free  remission.  Our  first  remark  on  this  objection  is,  that  the 
Scriptures  use  this  same  figure,  and  therefore  it  is  right  it  should 
be  used.  When  it  is  said,  Christ  purchased  the  church  with  his 
own  blood,  that 'we  are  redeemed  not  with  corruptible  things  as 
silver  and  gold,  but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  such 
language  means  something.  In  every  metaphor  there  is  a  point 
of  comparison  ;  the  essential  idea  involved  in  the  figure  must  be 
found  in  the  subject  to  be  illustrated.  To  purchase  is  to  acquire, 
and  to  acquire  by  giving  or  doing  something  which  secures  a  title 
to  the  thing  acquired.  When  it  is  said  that  Christ  purchased 
the  church,  it  is  certainly  meant  that  he  acquired  it,  that  it  is 
his,  and  that  by  his  death  he  has  secured  a  title  to  it,  founded  in 
the  justice  and  promise  of  God.  This  does  not  make  redemp- 
tion a  commercial  transaction,  nor  imply  that  there  are  not  es- 
sential points  of  diversity  between  acquiring  by  money  and 
acquiring  by  blood.  Hence  our  second  remark  is,  that  if  Dr. 
Beman  will  take  up  any  elementary  work  on  theology,  he  will 
find  the  distinction  between  pecuniary  and  penal  satisfaction 
clearly  pointed  out,  and  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  shown  to  be 
of  the  latter,  and  not  of  the  former  kind.  1.  In  the  one,  the  de- 
mand is  upon  the  thing  due,  in  the  other  case,  it  is  upon  the 
person  of  the  criminal.  Hence,  2.  The  creditor  is  bound  to  ac- 
cept the  payment  of  the  debt,  no  matter  when  or  by  whom 
offered  ;  whereas,  in  the  case  of  a  crime  or  sin,  the  sovereign  is 
bound  neither  to  provide  a  substitute  nor  to  accept  of  one  when 
offered.  If  he  does  either,  it  is  a  matter  of  grace.  3.  Hence 
penal  satisfaction  does  not  ipso  facto  liberate  ;  the  acceptance  is 

'  See  the  fourth  vol.  of  hig  works,  the  treatise  De  Saiisfactione  Ghrisii,  p.  289. 
The  same  answer  to  the  same  objection  may  be  seen  in  De  Moor,  vol.  iii.,  p.  1030. 


166  BEMAN    ON    THE    ATONEMENT. 

a  matter  of  arrangement  or  covenant,  and  the  terms  of  that 
covenant  must  depend  on  the  will  of  the  parties.  Dr.  Beraan 
lapsed  into  an  important  truth,  when  he  said,  "  Christ  suffered 
by  covenant." — P.  98.  What  that  covenant  is,  we  learn  from 
Scripture,  and  from  the  manner  in  which  it  is  executed.  The 
Bible  teaches  that,  agreeably  to  that  covenant,  the  merits  of 
Christ  do  not  avail  to  the  benefit  of  his  people  immediately ;  his 
children  remain  under  condemnation  as  well  as  others  until  they 
believe  ;  and  when  they  do  believe  they  receive  but  the  first 
fruits  of  their  inheritance,  they  are  but  imperfectly  sanctified, 
and  are  still  subject  to  many  evils,  but  being  in  a  justified 
state  their  suflerings  are  chastisements  and  not  punishments, 
that  is,  they  are  designed  for  their  own  improvement,  and  not  to 
satisfy  justice. 

The  satisfaction  of  Christ,  therefore,  being  fop  sin  and  by  suf- 
fering, is  expressly  and  formally  declared  not  to  be  of  the  nature 
of  pecuniary  satisfaction.  The  grace  of  the  gospel  is  thereby  not 
obscured  but  rendered  the  more  conspicuous.  God  is  not  ren- 
dered merciful  by  the  atonement  (as  we  be  slanderously  reported, 
as  some  afiirm  that  we  say),  on  the  contrary,  the  atonement 
flows  from  his  infinite  love.  Dr.  Beman  writes  as  a  Tritheist,  or 
as  against  Tritheists,  when  he  speaks  of  the  work  of  the  Son 
rendering  the  Father  gracious,  and  attributes  that  representation 
to  us.  The  Lord  our  God  is  one  God.  It  was  his  infinite  love 
devised  the  plan  of  redemption,  and  it  was  so  devised,  that 
the  exercise  of  love  should  be  perfectly  consistent  with  holiness, 
in  order  that  God  might  be  just  in  justifying  sinners.  Surely 
then  our  doctrine  does  not  obscure  the  grace  of  the  gospel,  at 
least  as  to  the  origin  of  the  plan  of  mercy.  But  it  is  further  ob- 
jected that  if  Christ  rendered  a  complete  satisfaction  to  divine 
justice,  then  pardon  becomes  a  matter  of  justice  and  not  of 
grace.  Justice  to  whom  ?  certainly  not  to  the  ungodly,  the  un- 
righteous, the  utterly  undeserving,  and  hell-deserving  sinner. 
If  Christ  sufiered  by  covenant,  and  fulfilled  all  the  conditions  of 
that  covenant,  then  he  acquired  a  right  to  its  promises.  If  he 
purchased  his  church  he  has  a  right  to  it.  If  it  was  promised 
that  for  his  obedience  to  death,  he  should  see  of  the  travail  of  his 
soul  and  be  satisfied,  then  he,  having  done  all  that  was  required 
,of  him,  has  a  right  to  the  promised  reward.  But  what  right 
have  we  ?     None  in  the   world  ;  we  are  poor,  and  blind,  and 


BEMAN    ON     THE    ATONEMENT.  167 

miserable,  having  nothing,  meriting  nothing,  our  only  hope  is 
thal^  we  shall  be  treated,  not  according  to  our  deserts,  but  ac- 
cording to  the  merits  of  another. 

The  objection  sounds  strange  to  our  ears,  coming  from  such  a 
quarter,  that  we  destroy  the  grace  of  the  gospel.  What  is  sal- 
vation by  grace,  if  it  is  not  that  God  of  his  mere  good  pleasure 
provided  redemption  ;  that  he  determines  of  his  own  wQl  who 
shall  be  partakers  of  its  benefits  ;  that  those  who  are  brought  to 
repentance  and  faith,  are  not  only  justified  avowedly  on  the 
ground  of  a  righteousness  which  is  not  their  own,  but  are  made  to 
feel  and  acknowledge  as  the  very  condition  of  their  acceptance, 
their  own  ill-desert  and  misery ;  and  that  they  not  only  owe 
everything  to  Christ,  but  possess  everything  simply  in  virtue  of 
their  union  with  him,  w^hich  union  is  kept  up  only  by  a  self- 
renouncing,  self-emptying  faith  .?  The  feeblest  infant  resting  on 
its  mother's  bosom,  a  new  born  lamb  carried  in  the  shepherd's 
arms,  might  with  as  much  plausibility  be  suspected  of  doubting 
the  love  that  sustains  them,  as  the  believer  in  Christ's  having 
purchased  the  church  with  his  own  blood,  of  doubting  the  entire 
gratuitousness  of  his  own  salvation. 

It  would  be  easy  to  retort,  and  show  that  it  is  Dr.  Beman's 
doctrine  that  destroys  the  grace  of  salvation.  If  Christ  only 
makes  pardon  possible,  if  the  possibility  of  forgiveness  is  all  we 
owe  to  him,  to  whom  or  what  do  we  owe  heaven  ?  Is  it  to  our- 
selves, as  some  of  the  advocates  of  this  doctrine  teach  ?  This  is 
the  natural  answer.  Christ  having  made  pardon  possible,  then 
Grod  deals  with  men  according  to  their  works.  Whatever  answer 
Dr.  Beman  himself  would  give  to  the  above  question,  it  must, 
from  the  nature  of  his  system,  be  tame  compared  with  the  an- 
swer which  flows  from  the  doctrine  that  we  owe  the  blessed  Re- 
deemer, not  the  possibility  of  pardon  merely,  but  justification, 
adoption,  sanctification,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  life 
everlasting.  These  things  and  all  the  blessedness  they  include 
or  suppose,  are  not  merely  rendered  possible,  but  actually  se- 
cured and  given  for  Christ's  sake  alone  ;  and  hence  the  spirits 
of  the  just  made  perfect,  whose  robes  have  been  w^ashed  and 
made  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,  would  drown  in  their 
thanksgiving  to  him  that  has  cleansed  them  from  all  sin,  the 
whispered  acknowledgments  of  those  who  have  nothing  for  which 
to  give  thanks  but  the  possibility  of  pardon. 


168  BE  MAN    ON    THE     ATONEMENT. 

These  objections  which.  Dr.  Beman  urges  in  various  forms 
throughout  Ms  book  are  all  old,  and  have  been  answered  a  hun- 
dred times.  There  is  indeed  one  objection  which  is  certainly 
American.  It  seems  there  was  no  economy  in  the  atonement. 
It  saved  nothing,  and  gained  nothing.  The  atonement,  it  is 
said,  is  "  the  grand  device  of  heaven  for  preventing  misery  and 
promoting  liappincss." — P.  108.  And  it  is  triumphantly  urged 
(through  some  eight  pages),  that  if  Christ  suffered  as  much  as 
the  redeemed  would  have  endured  there  is  no  gain  of  happiness. 
It  is  "a  mere  quid  pro  quo  transaction." — P.  111.  We  have 
already  shown  that  no  church,  or  class  of  men,  hold  that  the 
blessed  Redeemer  endured  as  much  suffering  as  the  redeemed 
would  have  endured.  It  is  a  mere  misrepresentation.  But  dis- 
missing that  j)oint,  the  objectionitself  is  unworthy  of  a  being  gifted 
with  a  moral  sense.  Would  it  be  nothing  that  unnumbered 
millions  are  saved  from  sin  and  made  perfect  in  holiness  ?  Sup- 
posing there  was  no  absolute  gain  as  to  the  amount  of  misery 
prevented,  that  Christ  had  in  a  few  years  suffered  all  that  finite 
beings  through  eternity  could  endure,  still  would  the  vast  acces- 
sion to  the  holy  inhabitants  of  heaven  be  nothing  ?  Does  not 
the  Bible  say  that  he  gave  himself  for  his  church,  to  purify  and 
cleanse  it  ?  that  the  promotion  of  the  holiness  was  the  design  of 
his  death  ?  Has  it  come  to  this,  that  the  theory  which  makes 
haj^piness  the  end  of  the  creation,  must  represent  holiness  as 
nothing,  not  worth  giving  thanks  for,  if  gained  at  the  least  ex- 
pense of  happiness  ?  This  gross,  epicurean  view  of  the  sublime 
and  awful  mystery  of  redemption,  is  a  disgrace  to  the  age  and 
country  that  gave  it  birth. 

We  have  thus  endeavored  to  show  that  the  theory  of  atone- 
ment advocated  by  Dr.  Beman  is  founded  on  the  false  assump- 
tion that  the  punishment  of  sin  is  for  the  prevention  of  crime, 
and  not  on  account  of  its  own  intrinsic  ill-desert ;  that  it  of  ne- 
cessity involves  a  denial  of  the  justice  of  God,  and  makes  mere 
happiness  the  end  of  creation  ;  that  it  is  destitute  of  any  sem- 
blance or  pretence  of  support  from  the  Scriptures  ;  that  it  is  just 
as  arbitrary,  and  as  much  a  philosophical  speculation,  as  the 
Socinian  theory ;  the  latter  asserting  that  the  design  of  Christ's 
death  was  to  display  the  love  of  Grod,  and  thus  lead  men  to  re- 
pentance, and  the  former,  that  it  was  intended  to  express  his 
regard  for  his  law,  and  thus  act  as  a  motive  to  obedience.     We 


BEMAN    ON    THE    ATONEMENT.  169 

further  endeavored  to  prove  that  the  theory  is  in  direct  conflict 
with  the  Bible.  The  Scriptures  teach,  in  every  possible  way, 
that  as  man  was  under  a  law  or  covenant  which  requires  perfect 
obedience,  and  threatens  death  in  case  of  transgression,  the  Son 
of  Grod  was  born  of  a  woman  and  made  under  that  law,  fulfilling 
its  conditions  of  perfect  obedience  and  sustaining  its  curse  for 
man's  redemption  ;  and  that  his  righteousness  is  freely  imputed 
to  all  those  who  receive  and  rest  upon  it  by  faith.  In  denying 
this  doctrine,  which  is  the  common  faith  of  Christendom,  Dr. 
Beman's  theory  involves  the  denial  of  justification,  reducing  it 
to  mere  pardon  ;  destroys  the  true  doctrine  of  justifying  faith  ; 
overlooks  the  union  between  Christ  and  his  people  ;  tends  to 
banish  Christ  from  view,  and  to  vitiate  the  very  source  of  all 
evangelical  religion. 

We  showed  that  his  objections  to  this  doctrine,  with  one 
melancholy  exception,  were  the  oft  repeated  and  oft  refuted 
calumnies  of  Socinians  ;  that  the  common  doctrine  does  not  in- 
volve the  transfer  of  moral  character  or  represent  Christ  as  a 
sinner ;  that  so  far  from  obscuring  the  grace  of  the  gospel,  or 
teaching  that  the  atonement  is  the  cause  of  the  love  of  Grod,  it 
represents  it  as  flowing  from  that  love,  and  presents,  in  the 
clearest  possible  light,  the  gratuitous  nature  of  salvation.  It  is 
of  grace  that  a  Saviour  was  provided  ;  of  grace  that  the  benefits 
of  his  death  are  conferred  on  one  rather  than  another.  And 
though  we  rejoice  to  know  that  he  has  acquired  a  right  to  his 
church,  having  bought  it  with  his  own  blood,  yet  his  people 
know,  feel,  and  acknowledge  that  to  them  everything  is  of  grace 
— their  vocation,  justification,  and  final  salvation.  This  is 
Christianity,  a  religion  of  which  Christ  is  the  Alpha  and  Omega, 
the  first  and  the  last,  the  author  and  the  finisher,  not  the  mere 
cause  of  the  possibility  of  pardon. 

Our  discussion  of  the  all-important  question  respecting  the 
nature  of  the  atonement  has  run  out  to  so  great  a  length  that 
we  cannot  claim  much  room  for  the  consideration  of  its  extent. 
Dr.  Beman  writes  on  this  whole  subject,  veiy  much  as  a  man 
might  be  expected  to  write  against  Calvinism,  who  got  his  views 
of  that  system  from  the  furious  harangues  of  itinerant  Methodist 
preachers.  He  quotes  no  authorities,  establishes  no  assertions, 
but  coolly  goes  on  attributing  just  what  opinions  come  into  his 
head  to  those  against  whom  he  writes.     Had  he  taken  up  any 


170  BEMAN     ON     THE     ATONEMENT. 

one  author,  or  class  of  authors,  cited  from  their  writings  their 
own  exhibitions  of  doctrine,  and  proceeded  to  examine  them,  liis 
readers  would  know  what  credit  to  give  to  his  statements.  He 
however  has  preferred  to  state  in  general  terms  that  there  are  hut 
two  views  of  the  atonement,  his  own  and  another.  Tliat  other 
he  then  most  grievously  misrepresents.  He  attributes  to  all  who 
reject  his  doctrine  opinions  which  not  one  in  a  million  of  them 
ever  entertained.  As  far  as  relates  to  the  nature  of  the  atone- 
ment, these  misrepresentations  have  already  been  pointed  out. 
He  commences  and  continues  his  discussion  concerning  its  extent 
on  the  same  plan.  He  assumes  that  the  question  relates  to  the 
limitation  in  the  very  nature  of  the  work  of  Christ.  "  If,"  he 
says,  "  the  atonement  is  to  be  considered  as  a  literal  payment  of 
a  debt,  or,  in  other  words,  if  it  consisted  in  suffering  the  exact 
penalty  of  the  law  in  the  room  of  those  who  will  be  saved,  it  is 
manifest  that  it  must  be  limited  in  its  extent.  In  this  case  it 
would  be  a  provision  which  must  be  regulated  according  to 
the  principles  of  commutative  justice.  If  one  soul  were  to 
be  saved,  "  then  Christ  must  suffer  so  much,  if  a  thousand, 
then  a  thousand  times  as  much/'  &c. — P.  145.  The  02)posite 
doctrine,  which  he  adopts,  necessarily  leads  to  the  conclusion 
''  that  an  atonement  sufiicient  for  one,  is  sufficient  for  all  ;" 
of  course  those  who  reject  his  view,  are  made  to  hold  an  in- 
sufficient atonement. — P.  147.  So  Dr.  Cox,  in  his  introductory 
chapter,  speaks  of  "  the  limitation  of  the  nature"  of  the  atone- 
ment, and  represents  those  whom  he  opposes  as  holding  that  it 
is  as  "  limited  in  its  nature  as  in  its  application." — Pp.  16,  17. 
If  these  gentlemen  would  take  the  trouble  to  read  a  little  on  this 
subject  they  would  find  that  this  is  all  a  mistake.  They  are 
merely  beating  the  air.  Those  who  deny  that  Christ  died  for 
Judas  as  much  as  for  Paul,  for  the  non-elect  as  much  as  for  the 
elect,  and  who  maintain  that  he  died  strictly  and  properly  only 
for  his  own  people,  do  not  hold  that  there  is  any  limitation  in 
the  nature  of  the  atonement.  They  teach  as  fully  as  any  men, 
that  "  an  atonement  sufficient  for  one  is  sufficient  for  all."  It  is 
a  simple  question  relating  to  the  design,  and  not  to  the  nature 
of  Christ's  work.  That  work,  as  far  as  we  know  or  believe, 
would  have  been  the  same  had  God  purposed  to  save  but  one 
soul  or  the  souls  of  all  mankind.  We  hold  that  the  atonement 
as  to  its  value  is  infinite,  and  as  to  its  nature  as  much  adapted 


BEMAN    ON    THE    ATONEMENT.  171 

to  one  man  as  to  another,  to  all  as  to  one.  The  whole  question 
is,  for  what  purpose  did  he  die  ?  What  was  the  design  which 
Grod  intended  to  accomplish  by  his  mission  and  death  ?  That 
this  is  the  true  state  of  the  question  is  obvious  from  the  flict  that 
the  Keformed  and  Lutherans  do  not  diifer  at  all  as  to  the  nature 
of  Christ's  satisfaction,  though  they  do  differ  as  to  its  design. 
Lutherans,  as  they  deny  the  doctrine  of  election,  deny  that  the 
satisfaction  of  Christ  had  special  reference  to  the  elect,  though 
they  are  even  more  strict  than  the  Reformed  in  their  views  of 
the  vicarious  nature  of  the  atonement,  i.  e.,  of  the  imputation  of 
our  sins  to  Christ,  and  of  his  obedience  to  us.  Accordingly,  in 
all  the  early  defences  of  Calvinists,  their  arguments  on  the  ne- 
cessity and  on  the  truth  or  nature  of  the  atonement  are  directed 
against  Socinians,  and  not  against  either  Romanists  or  Lutherans. 
But  when  the  question  is  discussed,  "For  whom  did  Christ  die  ?" 
they  address  their  arguments  against  the  latter.  Turrettin,  for 
example,  in  the  statement  of  this  question,  says,  "  It  is  not  a 
question  concerning  the  value  and  sufficiency  of  Christ's  death, 
whether  it  is  not  in  itself  sufficient  for  the  salvation  of  all 
men.  That  is  on  both  sides  admitted.  His  death  being  of  in- 
finite value,  would  have  been  most  amply  sufficient  for  the  re- 
demption of  all  men,  if  God  had  seen  fit  to  extend  it  to  all. 
Hence  the  common  distinction  made  by  the  fathers,  and  retained 
by  many  theologians,  Christ  died  sufficiently  for  all,  efficaciously 
for  the  elect,  is  perfectly  true  if  understood  of  the  worth  of 
Christ's  death,  but  not  so  accurate  if  understood  of  his  purpose 
and  design  in  dying.  The  question,  therefore,  properly  relates 
to  the  purpose  of  the  Father  in  giving  his  Son,  and  the  intention 
of  the  Son  in  laying  down  his  life.  Did  the  Father  destine  his 
Son  for  all  and  every  man,  and  did  the  Son  deliver  himself  to 
death  with  the  intention  of  substituting  himself  in  the  j)lace  of 
all  and  every  one,  in  order  to  make  satisfaction  and  procure  sal- 
vation for  them  ?  Or  did  Christ  give  himself  for  the  elect  alone, 
who  were  given  to  him  by  the  Father,  and  whose  head  he  was  to 
be  ?  The  heart  of  the  question,  therefore,  comes  to  this,  not 
what  is  the  nature  or  efficacy  of  the  death  of  Christ,  but  what 
was  the  design  of  the  Father  in  giving  him  up,  and  the  intention 
of  Christ  in  dying.'" 

The  simple  statement  of  our  doctrine,  therefore,  answers  two 

'  Turrettin,  vol.  ii.,  p.  498. 


172  BEMAN    ON     THE    ATONEMENT. 

thirds  of  Dr.  Beman's  objections  against  it.  This  is  not  a  state- 
ment got  up  for  the  occasion,  hut  made  a  century  and  a  half 
before  he  was  born.  There  is  one  view  in  which  the  question 
concerning  the  extent  of  the  atonement  is  indeed  intimately  con- 
nected with  its  nature.  If  any  man  holds  the  doctrine  that  the 
atonement  was  nothing  more  than  a  symbolical  expression  of  a 
truth,  and  "  merely  opened  the  door  of  mercy,"  there  is  of  course 
an  end  to  all  question  as  to  its  design.  If  that  be  its  nature,  it 
can  have  no  more  reference  to  the  saved  than  to  the  lost.  And 
it  is  probably  in  order  to  get  rid  of  all  difficulty  as  to  the  extent 
of  the  atonement,  that  many  have  been  led  to  adopt  the  above- 
mentioned  most  unscriptural  and  dangerous  view  of  its  nature. 
But  if  the  true  doctrine  concerning  the  nature  of  the  satisfaction 
is  retained,  as  it  was  by  the  Lutherans,  and  even  in  a  great 
measure  by  the  early  Remonstrants,  at  least  by  Grotius,  the 
question  as  to  its  extent  resolves  itself  into  a  question  concern- 
ing the  purposes  of  God.  It  might  seem  as  if  this  were  an  en- 
tirely useless  question.  The  purposes  of  God  are  not  the  rule  of 
our  duty,  and  whatever  God  may  design  to  do,  we  are  to  act  in 
accordance  with  his  preceptive  will.  Still  there  is  a  right  and  a 
wrong  in  every  question,  and  what  is  wrong  in  relation  to  one 
point,  must  tend  to  produce  erroneous  views  with  regard  to 
others. 

Dr.  Cox  intimates,  with  some  truth,  that  the-  difference  of 
opinion  on  this  point  has  its  origin  in,  or  at  least  implies  a  dif- 
ference of  view  as  to  the  order  of  the  divine  purposes. — Page  18. 
As  in  fact,  however,  there  is  no  order  of  succession  in  the  pur- 
poses of  God,  but  simply  in  our  mode  of  conceiving  them,  all  his 
decrees  being  comprehended  in  one  eternal  purpose,  any  question 
about  the  order  of  those  decrees  must  be  a  question  relating  to 
our  own  thoughts.  Those  thoughts,  however,  may  be  confused, 
contradictory,  or  lead  to  conclusions  in  conilict  with  revealed 
facts.  Even  this  question,  therefore,  is  not  without  its  import- 
ance. If  the  purposes  of  God  are 'all  one,  any  mode  of  conceiv- 
ing them  which  prevents  their  being  reduced  to  unity  ;  which 
supposes  cither  a  change  or  uncertainty  in  the  divine  plan,  must 
be  erroneous.  As  it  is  involved  in  our  idea  of  God  as  the  intelli- 
gent ruler  of  the  universe,  that  he  had  a  design  in  the  creation 
and  redemption  of  man,  all  classes  of  theologians  form  some 
theory  (if  that  word  may  be  used)  of  the  plan  adopted  for  the 


BEMAN    ON    THE    ATONEMENT.  1T3 

accomplisliment  of  that  design.  According  to  one  system  God 
purposed  to  create  man,  to  permit  the  fall,  to  provide  salvation 
for  all,  to  give  all  sufficient  grace,  to  elect  to  life  those  who  im- 
prove this  grace.  This  is  the  scheme  of  the  Kemonstrants,  and 
of  those  generally  who  reject  the  doctrines  of  election  and  effica- 
cious grace.  According  to  another  system,  God  purposed  to 
create  man,  to  permit  the  fall,  to  provide  for  the  salvation  of  all ; 
but,  foreseeing  that  none  would  accept  of  that  salvation,  he  chowe 
some  to  everlasting  life,  and  determined,  by  his  elFectual  grace, 
to  give  them  faith  and  repentance.  This  is  the  scheme  proposed 
by  Amyraud,  Testard,  Camero,  and  other  French  theologians  of 
the  seventeenth  century.  According  to  others,  God  purposed  to 
create  man,  to  permit  the  fall,  to  choose  from  the  mass  of  fallen 
men  an  innumerable  multitude  as  vessels  of  mercy,  to  send  his 
Son  for  their  redemption,  and  with  him  to  give  them  everything 
necessary  for  their  salvation.  This  was  the  common  doctrine  of 
all  the  reformed  churches,  from  which  the  two  former  systems 
were  departures.  The  common  New  School  system  adopted  in 
this  country,  lies  between  the  Arminian  and  the  French  scheme, 
containing  more  truth  than  the  former,  and  less  than  the  latter. 

The  question,  which  of  these  views  of  the  whole  plan  of  God's 
dealings  with  men  is  the  most  correct,  must  be  determined,  1. 
By  ascertaining  which  is  most  consistent  with  itself ;  which  best 
admits  of  being  reduced  to  one  simple  purpose.  It  would  not  be 
difficult  to  show  that  the  two  former  include  contradictions,  and 
involve  the  ascription  of  conflicting  purposes  to  God.  2.  By  as- 
certaining which  is  most  in  harmony  with  the  admitted  charac- 
ter of  God,  as  infinite,  independent,  and  self-sufficient,  of  whom, 
and  through  whom^  and  to  whom  are  all  things.  3.  By  ascer- 
taining which  is  most  consistent  with  revealed  facts.  The  first, 
or  Arminian  scheme,  breaks  down  entirely  by  coming  in  conflict 
with  the  clearly  revealed  truth  of  God's  sovereignty  in  election, 
and  of  conversion  by  his  mighty  power,  and  not  by  an  influence 
common  to  all  men.  Our  present  business,  however,  is  with  the 
two  latter  schemes,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  the  design  of  Christ's 
death.  Was  the  Son  of  God  sent  into  the  world,  as  Dr.  Beman 
says,  merely  to  make  the  salvation  of  all  men  possible,  or  ac- 
tually to  save  all  whom  God  had  given  him  ? 

Before  attempting  to  answer  this  question,  it  is  proper  to  re- 
mark, that  Dr.  Beman  and  those  who  adopt  his  theory,  seem 


174  BEMAN    ON    THE    ATONEMENT. 

constantly  disposed  to  forget  that  salvation  is  by  geace.  If  it 
is  of  grace,  then  it  is  a  matter  of  grace  that  Grod  provided  salva- 
tion at  all  for  guilty  men.  If  this  is  not  so,  the  gift  of  Christ, 
the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  every  other  gift  requisite 
for  our  salvation,  are  mere  matters  of  justice,  which  it  would 
have  been  unrighteous  to  withhold.  No  man  can  believe  that, 
however,  without  contradicting  every  page  of  the  Bible,  and  the 
testimony  of  every  true  Christian.  2.  But  if  God  was  not  bound 
to  save  any,  he  is  at  liberty  to  save  whom  he  pleases.  If  he  need 
not  provide  salvation  for  any,  there  could  be  no  injustice  in  pro- 
viding it  for  some  and  not  for  others.  If  salvation  is  of  grace,  it 
is  of  grace  that  one  and  not  another  is  saved.  And  to  complain 
that  the  mission  of  Christ  was  not  designed  to  save  all,  or  even 
that  it  did  not  open  the  door  of  mercy  for  all,  if  such  were  ac- 
tually the  case,  would  be  to  complain  of  the  gratuitous  nature  of 
salvation.  And,  3.  If  salvation  is  by  grace,  then  those  who  are 
saved,  are  freely  called,  justified,  and  glorified.  The  ground  of 
their  acceptance  is  not  to  be  found  in  them,  but  in  the  good 
pleasure  of  God.  This  is  the  plain  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  to  which 
we  must  submit ;  and  it  is  so  clearly  revealed,  and  so  essential  to 
the  very  nature  of  the  Gospel,  that  those  who  are  not  willing  to 
be  saved  by  grace,  cannot  be  saved  at  all. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  preliminary  presumption  against  the 
doctrine,  that  the  death  of  Christ  had  not  an  equal  reference  to 
all  men,  but  had  a  special  relation  to  his  own  people.  The  pre- 
sumption is  all  the  other  way.  As  the  whole  plan  of  salvation  is, 
according  to  the  apostle,  arranged  with  a  view  "to  show  the  ex- 
ceeding riches  of  the  grace  of  God,  by  his  kindness  towards  us," 
that  view  of  the  economy  of  redemption,  which  renders  the  grace 
of  God  the  most  conspicuous,  is  the  most  in  harmony  Avith  its 
grand  design.  What  God's  actual  purpose  was  in  the  mission  of 
his  Son  we  can  only  learn  from  his  own  declarations.  He  reteals 
his  designs  to  us  partly  by  their  execution,  'and  partly  by  the  an- 
nunciation of  them  in  his  word.  What  God  does,  is  the  clearest 
revelation  of  what  he  intended  to  do.  Hence,  if  the  satisfaction 
of  Christ  actually  saves  all  men,  it  was  certainly  designed  to  save 
all  men  ;  but  if  it  saves  only  a  part  of  the  human  race,  it  was 
certainly  designed  only  for  a  part.  It  cannot  be  questioned  that 
Christ  came  to  save  men  from  their  sins,  and  if  we  ask,  "^ho  he 
intended  to  save  ?  we  can  get  no  better  answer  than  by  learning 


BEMAN    ON    THE    ATONEMENT.  175 

whom  he  does  in  fact  save.  If  the  end  of  Christ's  mission  was 
salvation,  it  is  not  conceivable  that  he  died  equally  for  all,  unless 
he  purposed  to  save  all,  Dr.  Beman,  however,  denies  that  the 
design  of  his  mission  was  salvation,  it  was  merely  to  make  salva- 
tion possible. 

In  assuming  this  ground,  he  is  guilty  of  the  same  one-sided- 
ness,  the  same  contracted  view,  which  he  exhibits  in  his  doctrine 
concerning  the  nature  of  the  atonement.  It  is  conceded  that 
the  work  of  Christ  does  lay  the  foundation  for  the  offer  of  salva- 
tion to  all  men.  Dr.  Beman  hence  concludes  that  this  was  its 
only  end  ;  that  it  merely  opens  the  way  for  the  general  offer  of 
pardon.  His  theory  is  designed  to  account  for  one  fact,  and 
leaves  all  the  other  revealed  facts  out  of  view,  and  unexplained. 
The  Bible  teaches,  however,  a  great  deal  more  in  relation  to  this 
subject,  than  that  one  fact.  It  teaches,  1.  That  Christ  came  in 
execution  of  a  purpose  ;  that  he  suffered,  as  Dr.  Beman  ex- 
presses it,  by  covenant,  and  ratified  that  covenant  with  his  own 
blood.  2.  That  his  mission  was  the  result  and  expression  of  the 
highest  conceivable  love.  3.  That  it  not  merely  removes  ob- 
stacles out  of  the  way,  but  actually  secures  the  salvation  of  his 
people.  4.  That  it  lays  the  foundation  for  a  free,  full,  and  un- 
restrained offer  of  salvation  to  all  men.  5.  That  it  renders 
just  the  condemnation  of  those  who  reject  him  as  their  Saviour  ; 
that  rejection  being  righteously  the  special  ground  of  their  con- 
demnation. 

Dr.  Beman's  theory  accords  only  with  the  last  two  facts  just 
mentioned.  It  wiU  account  for  the  general  offer  of  the  gospel, 
and  for  the  condemnation  of  those  who  reject  it,  but  it  is  incon- 
sistent with  all  the  other  facts  above  stated,  which  are  not  less 
clearly  revealed,  and  not  less  important.  It  overlooks,  in  the 
first  place,  the  fact  that  Christ  came  into  the  world  and  accom- 
plished the  work  of  redemption,  in  execution  of  the  covenant  of 
grace.  The  use  of  such  words  as  covenant,  is  often  convenient, 
and  sometimes  unavoidable,  as  a  concise  method  of  expressing 
several  related  truths.  Wherever  there  is  a  promise  by  one  per- 
son to  another,  suspended  upon  the  performance  of  a  condition, 
there  is  a  covenant.  As,  therefore,  the  Scriptures  expressly 
speak  of  a  promise  made  to  the  Son,  suspended  upon  the  con- 
dition of  his  incarnation,  obedience,  and  death,  they  teach  that 
there  was  a  covenant  of  grace.     The  promise  made  to  the  Re- 


176  BEMAN    ON    THE    ATONEMENT. 

deemer  was,  that  he  should  see  the  travail  of  his  soul  ;  that  he 
should  have  the  heathen  for  his  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth  for  his  possession  ;  that  those  whom  the  Father 
had  given  him  should  come  unto  him  ;  that  they  should  all  be 
taught  of  God,  receive  the  Spirit,  and  be  raised  up  the  last  day  ; 
that  he  should  be  the  first-born  among  many  brethren,  and  be 
highly  exalted  as  the  head  of  his  people,  and  far  above  all  prin- 
cipalities and  powers.  It  is  further  expressly  taught  that  he 
secured  all  these  inestimable  blessings  by  his  obedience  unto 
death.  Because  he  thus  humbled  himself,  God  has  highly  ex- 
alted him  ;  on  account  of  the  suffering  of  death,  he  was  crowned 
with  glory  and  honor  ;  because  he  made  his  soul  an  offering  for 
sin,  therefore  God  hath  divided  to  him  his  portion.  If  these 
things  are  so,  if  Christ  had  the  attainment  of  these  blessings, 
which  involve  the  salvation  of  his  people,  in  view  in  coming  into 
the  world  ;  if  the  accomplishment  of  this  work  was  the  object  of 
his  mission,  then  it  is  a  contradiction  in  terms,  to  say  that,  as 
far  as  the  purpose  of  God  and  his  own  intention  are  concerned, 
he  had  not  a  special  reference  to  his  own  people  and  to  their  sal- 
vation in  his  death.  Their  salvation  was  the  reward  promised, 
when  it  was  said,  "  he  shall  see  his  seed,"  and  it  was  for  that 
recompense  he  died.  Dr.  Beman's  theory  denies  all  this.  It 
assumes  that  his  death,  his  whole  work,  had  no  reference  to  one 
class  of  men  more  than  to  another,  to  the  saved  more  than  to 
the  lost.  It  simply  made  the  pardon  of  all  men  possible.  This 
is  of  course  a  denial  of  what  Dr.  Beman  himself,  in  an  unguarded 
hour,  admitted,  viz.,  that  Christ  suffered  by  covenant.  What 
covenant  ?  The  Scriptures  make  mention  of  no  other  covenant 
in  connection  with  the  Eedeemer's  death  than  that  which  in- 
cluded the  promise  of  his  people  to  him  as  a  reward,  and  which 
was  ratified  in  his  blood.  Here  then  is  one  plain,  important, 
revealed  fact,  which  Dr.  Beman's  theory  overlooks  and  contra- 
dicts. If  Christ  in  his  death  had  regard  to  the  recompense  of 
reward,  and  if  that  reward  included  the  holiness  and  salvation 
of  his  people,  then  beyond  contradiction,  his  satisfaction  had  a 
special  reference  to  them. 

In  the  second  place  his  theory  contradicts  the  plainly  revealed 
fact,  that  the  mission  and  death  of  Christ  are  the  expressions  of 
the  highest  conceivable  love.  According  to  Dr.  Beman,  they  are 
the  expression  of  mere  general  benevolence.     It  is  admitted  that 


BEMAN    ON    THE    ATONEMENT.  177 

love  was  the  motive  which  led  to  the  gift  of  the  Son  of  God.  If 
that  love  was  general  benevolence  to  all  men,  then  he  died  for 
all  ;  if  it  was  special  love  to  his  own  people,  then  he  died  for 
them.  That  there  is  such  special  love  in  Grod,  is  involved  in  the 
doctrine  of  election.  According  to  that  doctrine,  God,  of  his 
mere  good  pleasure,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  chose 
some  to  everlasting  life,  and,  for  infinitely  wise  and  holy  reasons, 
left  others  to  perish  in  their  sins.  To  say  that  the  infinite  love 
which  led  to  the  mission  of  Christ  was  a  benevolence  which  had 
equal  regard  to  these  two  classes,  is  to  deny  the  doctrine  of 
election.  That  doctrine,  in  its  very  nature,  supposes  a  difference 
in  the  regard  had  for  the  vessels  of  mercy  and  the  vessels  of 
wrath  ;  for  those  in  whom  God  purposed  to  display  the  riches  of 
his  grace,  and  those  on  whom  he  designed  to  show  his  wrath,  and 
make  his  power  known.  In  teaching  this  doctrine,  therefore, 
the  Scriptures  teach,  that  besides  the  benevolence  with  which 
God  regards  all  men,  there  is  a  higher,  special,  mysterious,  un- 
speakable love,  which  he  has  to  his  own  children  ;  and  to  this 
love  they  refer  the  incarnation  and  death  of  the  Son  of  God. 
The  Scriptures  are  too  explicit  and  too  full  on  this  latter  point 
to  allow  of  its  being  questioned.  Greater  love,  said  Christ  him- 
self, hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a  man  lay  down  his  life  for  his 
friends.  Paul  prays  that  the  Ephesians  may  be  strengthened  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  to  be  able  to  comprehend  what  is  the  breadth, 
and  length,  and  depth,  and  height,  and  to  know  the  love  of 
Christ  which  passes  knowledge.  Hereby  perceive  we  the  love  of 
God,  because  he  laid  down  his  life  for  us.  In  this  we  perceive 
the  love  of  God  towards  us,  because  that  God  sent  his  only  be- 
gotten Son  into  the  world  that  we  might  live  through  him.  He 
that  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  delivered  him  up  for  us 
all,  how  shall  he  not  with  him  freely  give  us  all  things  ?  In 
these  and  in  various  similar  passages,  it  is  distinctly  asserted  that 
the  love  which  led  to  the  gift  of  Christ  was  not  general  benev- 
olence, consistent  with  the  eternal  reprobation  of  its  objects,  but 
the  highest  conceivable  love,  that  would  spare  nothing  to  secure 
the  salvation  of  those  on  whom  it  rested. 

Again,  it  is  with  equal  explicitness  and  frequency  asserted, 
love  to  his  people  was  the  motive  of  the  Son  of  God  in  laying 
down  his  life.  "  For  their  sakes,"  said  the  Kedeemer,  "  I  sanctify 
myself."     "  I  am  the  good  shepherd,  the  good  shepherd  giveth 

12 


178  BEMAN     ON    THE    ATONEMENT. 

his  life  for  his  sheep,"  "  I  lay  down  my  life  for  my  sheep." 
"  Christ  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself  for  it."  Do  not 
these  passages  assert  that  love  for  his  church,  his  friends,  his 
sheep,  was  the  motive  of  Christ  in  dying  ?  When  the  Scriptures 
divide  men  into  classes,  the  sheep  and  the  goats,  the  church  and 
those  who  are  not  the  church,  and  say  that  love  to  his  sheep,  love 
to  his  church,  led  the  Saviour  to  lay  down  his  life,  they  expressly 
assert  that  it  Avas  a  peculiar  love  for  them,  and  not  a  general 
benevolence  including  them  and  all  others  alike,  that  was  the 
motive  of  Christ  in  laying  down  his  life.  Let  it  be  remembered 
that  this  whole  question  relates,  not  to  the  incidental  etfects  of 
Christ's  death,  but  to  his  intention  in  dying.  The  passages 
above  quoted,  and  the  Scriptures  generally,  do  then  teach  that, 
besides  his  general  benevolence  for  man,  God  has  a  special  love 
for  his  own  people,  and  that  that  special  love,  for  his  own,  for  his 
friends,  for  his  sheep,  led  the  Saviour  to  give  himself  up  to  death. 
If  this  is  so,  it  overturns  Dr.  Beman's  theory,  which  is  in  direct 
conflict  with  this  plain  and  precious  truth.  It  is  not  that  benev- 
olence which  consists  with  eternal  reprobation,  *.  e.,  with  the 
eternal  purpose  to  leave  men  to  suffer  the  just  recompense  of 
their  sins,  that  led  the  Father  to  give  up  the  Son,  and  the  Son 
to  assume  our  nature  and  die  upon  the  cross.  Those  who  admit 
this,  admit  all  the  limitation  of  the  atonement  for  which  we  con- 
tend ;  a  limitation  not  as  to  its  nature  or  value,  but  as  to  the 
purpose  of  God  and  intention  of  Christ.  Besides,  does  it  not  in- 
volve a  contradictian,  to  say  that  love  to  those  whom  God  pur- 
posed, for  wise  reasons,  not  to  save,  was  his  motive  in  providing 
salvation  ?  Our  Saviour  teaches  that  the  knowledge  of  the 
gospel  aggravates  the  guilt,  and  consequently  the  misery,  of  those 
who  reject  it ;  then  certainly,  love  to  them  was  not  the  motive 
which  led  cither  to  the  adoption  or  the  proclamation  of  the 
scheme  of  redemption.  The  fact  is,  this  doctrine  that  Christ 
died  as  much  for  Judas  as  for  Paul,  is  inconsistent  with  the  doc- 
trine of  election  ;  and  the  two  have  never  for  any  length  of  time 
been  held  together.  Those  theologians  in  the  church  of  Rome, 
who  remained  ftiithful  to  the  doctrine  of  election,  also  held  that 
the  death  of  Christ  had  special  reference  to  his  own  people.  The 
Lutherans,  when  they  rejected  the  one  doctrine,  rejected  also  the 
other.  So  did  the  Arminians.  A  few  French  divines  endeavored, 
by  reversing  the  natural  order  of  the  decrees,  for  a  time  to  unite 


BEMAN     ON    THE     ATONEMENT.  179 

the  two  ;  but  the  attempt  feiled.  Both  doctrines  were  soon  re- 
jected. The  sovereignty  of  God,  election,  special  love  as  the 
motive  of  redemption,  and  consequently  a  special  reference 
to  the  elect,  in  the  death  of  Christ,  are  joined  together  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  they  cannot  long  be  separated  in  the  faith  of 
God's  people. 

Another  revealed  fact  which  Dr.  Beman's  theory  overlooks  and 
contradicts,  is,  that  Christ's  death  not  only  removes  obstacles  out 
of  the  way  of  the  exercise  of  mercy,  but  actually  secures  the  sal- 
vation of  his  people.  It  has  been  repeatedly  shown  that  Dr. 
Beman  constantly  asserts  that  the  only  effect  of  the  atonement 
is  to  bring  the  sinner  within  the  reach  of  mercy,  it  merely  makes 
pardon  possible.  This  is  tlie  only  effect  claimed  for  it,  and  all 
that  can  be  attributed  to  it  on  his  theory.  This,  however,  is  in 
direct  conflict  with  the  Scriptures,  because  they  teach  that  the 
death  of  Christ  renders  the  salvation  of  his  own  people  certain. 
This  follows  from  what  has  already  been  said.  If  Christ  suffered 
by  covenant  ;  if  that  covenant  promised  to  him  his  people  as  his 
reward  and  inheritance,  on  condition  of  his  obedience  and  death, 
then  assuredly,  when  he  performed  that  condition,  the  salvation 
of  all  whom  the  Father  had  given  to  him  was  rendered  absolutely 
certain.  Hence,  it  is  said,  that  he  purchased  his  church,  that 
is,  acquired  a  right  to  it.  Ho  gave  himself  for  liis  church,  that 
he  might  purify  and  cleanse  it.  He  came  into  the  world  to  save 
his  people  from  their  sins.  He  gave  himself  for  our  sins,  that  he 
might  redeem  us  from  this  present  evil  world  ;  or  as  elsewhere 
said,  to  purify  a  peculiar  people  unto  himself  These  and  similar 
declarations  teach  that  the  design  of  Christ's  death  was  actually 
to  save  his  people.  They  are,  therefore,  so  many  direct  contra- 
dictions of  the  doctrine,  that  he  merely  opened  the  door  of  mercy. 
To  make  salvation  possible,  is  not  to  save  ;  to  make  holiness 
possible,  is  not  to  purify  ;  to  open  the  door,  is  not  to  bring  us 
near  to  God. 

(  The  Scriptures  also  ascribe  effects  to  the  death  of  Christ,  ir- 
reconcilable with  the  idea  that  it  is  a  mere  governmental  disj)lay. 
We  are  justified  by  his  blood,  we  thereby  obtain  remission  of 
sins,  we  have  peace  with  God,  we  are  delivered  from  the  wrath 
to  come,  and  obtain  eternal  redemption.  It  is  contrary  to  all 
scriptural  usage  to  bring  down  all  these  and  similar  declarations 
to  mean  nothing  more  than  that  these  blessing's  are  rendered  at- 


180  BE  MAN    OX    THE    ATONEMENT. 

tainable  by  the  work  of  Christ.  This  is  not  what  the  words 
mean.  To  say  that  we  are  justified,  or  reconciled,  or  cleansed, 
is  not  to  say  that  the  obstacles  in  the  way  of  obtaining  the  bless- 
ings mentioned  are  merely  removed.  It  is  to  say  that  his  blood 
secures  those  blessings  ;  and  secures  them  in  the  time  and  way 
that  God  has  appointed.  No  instance  can  be  produced  in  which 
a  sacrifice,  ofiered  and  accepted,  is  said  to  propitiate  God  and  be 
the  ground  of  pardon,  when  nothing  more  is  meant  than  that 
the  sacrifice  renders  pardon  possible.  The  meaning  uniformly  is, 
that  it  secures  and  renders  it  certain.  The  very  acceptance  of 
it  is  the  established  way  of  promising  forgiveness  to  those  in 
whose  behalf  the  sacrifice  was  ofiered.  Dr.  Beman's  theory,  there- 
fore, in  attributing  so  little  to  the  death  of  Christ,  contradicts 
the  established  meaning  of  Scriptural  phrases  ;  and  is  inconsist- 
ent with  the  clearly  revealed  fact  that  his  death  makes  salvation 
not  only  possible,  but  certain. 

It  is  further  revealed  that  there  is  an  intimate  connection  be- 
tween the  death  of  Christ  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
Spirit  was  promised  to  Christ,  to  be  given  to  his  people.  The 
apostle  Peter  says.  He  having  received  the  promise  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  hath  shed  forth  this,  which  ye  both  see  and  hear.  Acts 
ii.  33.  In  Tit.  iii.  5,  6,  God  is  said  to  shed  on  us  abundantly 
the  Holy  Ghost,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  All  spiritual 
blessings  are  said  to  be  given  to  us  in  Christ  Jesus,  Eph.  i.  3  ;  that 
is,  on  account  of  our  union  with  him,  a  union  eternal  in  the  pur- 
pose of  God,  and  actual  when  we  believe  This  union  existing 
in  the  divine  purpose,  this  covenant  union  is  represented  as  the 
ground  of  the  gift  of  regeneration.  In  EjDh.  ii.  5,  6,  we  are  said 
to  be  quickened  with  Christ,  to  be  raised  up  in  him.  This  can 
only  mean  that  there  is  a  union  between  Christ  and  his  people, 
which  secures  to  them  that  influence  by  which  they  are  raised 
from  spiritual  death.  If  so,  then  in  the  covenant  to  ratify  which 
Christ  died,  it  was  promised  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should  be  given 
to  his  people,  and  to  secure  that  promise  was  one  design  of  his 
death.  And  consequently,  all  for  whom  he  died  must  receive 
that  Spirit,  whose  influences  were  secured  by  his  death.  He  is, 
therefore,  said  to  have  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law, 
that  we  might  receive  the  promise  of  the  Spirit,  Gal.  iii.  13,  14. 
It  obviously  contradicts  tliis  important  truth,  to  teach  that 
Christ's  death  had  as  much  reference  to  one  man  as  another,  or 


BE  MAN    ON    THE    ATONEMENT.  181 

that  it  merely  renders  mercy  possible.  If  Christ  suffered  by  cov- 
enant, and  if  that  covenant  included  the  promise  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  to  teach,  renew,  and  sanctify  his  people,  then  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  those  thus  taught,  renewed,  and  sanctified,  are  those 
for  whom  he  died. 

Dr.  Beman's  theory,  therefore,  which  denies  that  the  death 
of  Christ  had  a  special  reference  to  his  own  people,  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  plainly  revealed  facts  :  1.  That  he  died  in  ex- 
ecution of  a  covenant  in  which  his  people  were  promised  to  him 
as  his  reward,  to  secure  which  reward  is  declared  to  be  his  spe- 
cific and  immediate  design  in  laying  down  his  life.  2.  That 
the  motive  which  led  to  the  gift  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Son 
in  dying,  was  not  general  benevolence,  but  the  highest  conceiv- 
able love,  love  for  his  sheep  and  for  his  friends.  3.  That  the 
design  of  his  death  was  not  simply  to  remove  obstacles  out  of 
the  way  of  mercy,  but  actually  to  secure  the  salvation  of  those 
given  to  him  by  the  Father  ;  and  that  it  does  in  fact  secure  for 
them  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Grhost,  and  consequently  justification 
and  eternal  life.  In  other  words,  God,  having  out  of  his  mere 
good  pleasure  elected  some  to  everlasting  life,  did  enter  into  a 
covenant  of  grace  to  deliver  them  out  of  the  estate  of  sin  and 
misery,  and  to  bring  them  into  an  estate  of  salvation  by  a  Ke- 
deemer.  The  only  Redeemer  of  God's  elect  is  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who,  being  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  became  man,  was 
made  under  the  law,  satisfied  by  his  obedience  and  death  all  its  de- 
mands, and  thus  fulfilled  the  conditions  of  that  covenant  on  which 
the  salvation  of  his  people  was  suspended,  and  thereby  acquired 
a  right  to  them  as  his  stipulated  reward.  Such  was  the  specific 
design  and  certain  effect  of  his  death.  This  is  the  plain  doctrine 
of  our  standards,  and,  as  we  fully  believe,  of  the  word  of  God. 

It  will,  however,  doubtless  be  asked,  admitting  that  our  doc- 
trine of  the  atonement  does  accord  with  the  facts  above-men- 
tioned, can  it  be  reconciled  with  the  no  less  certain  facts  that  the 
gospel  is  to  be  freely  offered  to  all  men,  and  that  those  who  re- 
ject it  are  justly  condemned  for  their  unbelief.^  If  it  cannot,  it 
must  be  defective.     On  this  score,  however,  we  feel  no  difficulty. 

Our  doctrine,  is,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  order  to  secure 
the  salvation  of  his  people,  and  with  a  specific  view  to  that  end, 
fulfilled  the  conditions  of  the  law  or  covenant  under  which  they 
and  all  mankind  were  placed.     Those  conditions  were,  perfect 


182  B  E  M  A  N    ON    THE    ATONEMENT. 

obedience  and  satisfaction  to  divine  justice,  by  bearing  tbe  pen- 
alty threatened  against  sin.  Christ's  "righteousness,  therefore,  con- 
sists in  his  obedience  and  death.  That  righteousness  is  precisely 
what  the  law  demands  of  every  sinner,  in  order  to  his  justifica- 
tion before  God  It  is,  therefore,  in  its  nature  adapted  to  all 
sinners  who  are  under  that  law.  Its  nature  is  not  altered  by  the 
fact  that  it  "was  wrought  out  for  a  portion  only  of  such  sinners,  or 
that  it  is  secured  to  them  by  the  covenant  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  What  is  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  one  man  is 
necessary  for  the  salvation  of  another,  and  of  all.  The  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  therefore,  consisting  in  the  obedience  and  death 
demanded  by  the  law  under  which  all  men  are  placed,  is  adapted 
to  all  men.  It  is  also  of  infinite  value,  being  the  righteousness 
of  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  and  therefore  sufficient  for  all.  On 
these  two  grounds,  its  adaptation  to  all  and  its  sufficiency  for  all, 
rests  the  offer  made  in  the  gospel  to  all.  With  this  its  design 
we  have  nothing  to  do  ;  who  are  to  be  saved  by  it  we  do  not 
know.  It  is  of  such  a  nature  and  value,  that  whosoever  accepts 
of  it  shall  be  saved.  If  one  of  the  non-elect  should  believe  (though 
the  hypothesis  is  on  various  accounts  unreasonable),  to  him  that 
righteousness  would  be  imputed  to  his  salvation.  And  if  one  of 
the  elect  should  not  believe,  or  having  believed  should  apostatize, 
he  would  certainly  perish.  These  suppositions  are  made  simply 
to  show  that,  according  to  our  doctrine,  the  reason  why  any  man 
perishes  is  not  that  there  is  no  righteousness  provided  suitable 
and  adeq[uate  to  his  case,  or  that  it  is  not  freely  offered  to  all  that 
hear  the  gospel,  but  simply  because  he  wilfully  rejects  the  prof- 
fered salvation.  Our  doctrine,  therefore,  provides  for  the  univer- 
sal offer  of  the  gospel,  and  for  the  righteous  condemnation  of 
unbelievers,  as  thoroughly  as  Dr.  Beman's,  It  opens  the  door 
for  mercy,  as  far  as  legal  obstructions  are  concerned,  as  fully  as 
his  :  while  it  meets  all  the  other  revealed  facts  of  the  case.  It 
is  not  a  theory  for  one  fact.  It  includes  tliem  all ;  the  fact  that 
Christ  died  by  covenant  for  his  own  people,  that  love  for  his  own 
sheep  led  him  to  lay  down  his  life,  that  his  death  renders  their 
salvation  absolutely  certain,  that  it  opens  the  way  for  the  offer  of 
salvation  to  all  men,  and  shows  the  justice  of  the  condemnation 
of  unbelief.  No  man  perishes  for  the  want  of  an  atonement, 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  ;  it  is  also  our  doctrine. 
Dr.  Cox  is  pleased  to  call  us  "  restrictionists."     A  most  inap- 


BEMAN    ON    THE    ATONEMENT.  183 

propriate  designation.  There  is  more  saving  truth  in  the  parings 
of  our  doctrine  than  in  his  whole  theory.  Our  doctrine  contains 
all  the  modicum  of  truth  there  is  in  his,  and  it  contains  unspeak- 
ably more.  His  own  theory  is  the  most  restricted,  jejune,  meagre, 
and  lifeless,  that  has  ever  been  propounded.  It  provides  but  for 
one  fact ;  it  teaches  a  possible  salvation,  while  it  leaves  out  the 
very  soul  of  the  doctrine.  It  vitiates  the  essential  nature  of  the 
atonement,  makes  it  a  mere  governmental  display,  a  symbolical 
method  of  instruction,  in  order  to  do  what  was  better  done  with- 
out any  such  corruption.  While  we  teach,  that  Christ,  by  really 
obeying  the  law,  and  really  bearing  its  penalty  in  the  place  of 
his  people,  and  according  to  the  stipulations  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  secured  the  salvation  of  all  whom  the  Father  had  given 
him,  and  at  the  same  time  thi'ows  open  the  door  of  mercy  to  all 
who  choose  to  enter  it ;  we  retain  the  life-giving  doctrine  of 
Christ's  union  with  his  own  people,  his  obeying  and  dying  in 
their  stead,  of  his  bearing  our  sins,  and  of  our  becoming  the 
righteousness  of  God  in  him  ;  of  the  necessity  of  entire  self- 
renunciation  and  of  simple  reliance  on  his  righteousness,  on  the 
indwelling  of  his  Spirit,  and  on  his  strength  for  our  salvation ; 
while  we  impose  no  restriction  on  the  glorious  gospel  of  the  grace 
of  God. 

Long  as  this  discussion  has  become,  we  have  touched  only 
what  appeared  to  us  the  most  important  points  of  the  contro- 
versy, and  must  leave  others  unnoticed.  We  trust  we  have  said 
enough  to  show  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  surrendering  the 
common  faith  of  Christendom,  as  to  the  nature  of  the  atone- 
ment, for  the  miserable  theory  propounded  by  Dr.  Beman.  We 
cannot  close  this  article  without  a  single  remark  concerning  his 
book  itself.  It  is  a  small  volume,  sold  at  a  moderate  price,  and 
intended  for  general  circulation.  It  is  written  in  a  calm  and  con- 
fident sj)irit,  but  without  force,  discrimination,  or  learning.  It  is 
the  very  book  to  do  harm.  It  presents  its  readers  the  choice  be- 
ti7een  two  doctrines  ;  the  one  no  man  can  adopt,  the  other  is 
hardly  worth  accepting.  So  far  as  this  book  is  concerned,  the 
atonement  must  be  rejected  either  as  incredible  or  as  worthless. 
He  represents  the  one  doctrine,  as  teaching  that  Christ  became 
personally  and  morally  a  sinner,  that  he  suflered  just  what  in 
kind  and  degree  aU  his  people  throughout  eternity  would  have 
endured,  and  that  they  by  his  righteousness  became  morally  in- 


184  BEMAN    ON    THE    ATONEMENT. 

nocent.  This  view  of  tlie  atonement  no  man  can  believe  and  be 
a  Christian.  His  own  doctrine  makes  the  atonement  a  mere 
symbolical  method  of  instruction,  and  reduces  the  whole  work  of 
Christ  in  tliis  matter  to  making  pardon  possible.  This  again  is  a 
doctrine  which  we  see  not  how  any  man  can  practically  believe 
and  be  a  Christian.  The  book  in  itself  is  of  httle  consequence. 
But  from  its  gross  and  yet  confident  misrepresentation  of  the 
truth,  it  has  more  of  the  power  due  to  falsehood  than  any  book 
of  the  kind  we  know. 


V. 
GROUND  OF  FAITH  IN  THE  SCRIPTUEES/ 

In  1841,  Mr.  Thornwell  published  in  the  "  Spirit  of  the  Nine- 
teentli  Century,"  an  essay  on  the  claims  of  the  Apocrypha  to 
divine  inspiration.  In  reply  to  that  essay  the  Kev.  Dr.  Lynch,  a 
Eomish  clergyman  of  Charleston,  S.  C,  addressed  to  him  a  series 
of  letters,  to  which  the  present  volume  is  an  answer,  and  a  very 
complete  one.  It  is,  as  to  its  form  and  manner,  as  well  as  to 
thoroughness,  a  specimen  of  the  old-fashioned  mode  of  contro- 
versy. The  arguments  of  his  opponent  are  given  at  length,  and 
then  submitted  to  the  torture  of  remorseless  logic,  until  the  con- 
fession of  unsoundness  is  extorted.  In  this  way  Dr.  Lynch  is 
tracked  step  by  step  until  he  is  hunted  out  of  every  hiding- 
place,  and  is  seen  by  others,  however  he  may  regard  himself,  to 
be  completely  run  down.  As  a  refutation,  this  work  of  Mr. 
Thornwell,  is  complete.  There  is  much  in  this  book  that  re- 
minds us  of  Chilling  worth.  There  is  a  good  deal  of  the  acumen, 
the  perspicuity,  and  logic  of  that  great  master  of  sentences. 
There  is  the  same  untiring  following  up  of  an  opponent,  giving 
him  the  benefit  first  of  one  then  of  another  hypothesis,  until  he 
has  nothing  left  on  which  to  hang  an  argument.  This  mode  of 
discussion,  while  it  has  many  advantages,  has  some  inconve- 
niences. It  is  difficult,  in  such  cases,  for  the  respondent  to  pre- 
vent his  book  assuming  more  the  character  of  a  refutation  of  a 
particular  author,  than  of  a  discussion  of  a  subject.      His  an- 

'  Revieiu  of  the  Arguments  of  Romanists  from  the  Infallihility  of  the  Church  and 
Testimony  of  the  Fathers  in  behalf  of  the  Apocrypha,  discussed  and  refuted.  By  Jambs 
H.  Thornwell,  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  and  E\ideiices  of  Christianity,  in  the 
South  Carohna  College.  New  York:  Leavitt,  Trow  &  Company.  Robert  Carter. 
Boston:  Charles  Tappan,  &c.,  &c.,  &c.,  1845.    Pp.417. 


186  GROUND    OF    FAITH    IN"    THE     SCRIPTURES. 

tagonist's  arguments  give  form  to  his  reply  ;  and  the  reader  feels 
that  he  is  listening  to  a  debate  between  tAvo  disputants,  rather 
than  to  a  continuous  exhibition  of  the  point  in  controversy.  This 
disadvantage  every  one  must  feel  to  be  a  very  serious  one,  in  the 
writings  of  Chillingworth.  Their  value  would,  to  the  present 
generation  at  least,  be  greatly  enhanced,  had  he  made  it  more 
his  object  to  exhibit  the  whole  truth  on  the  subjects  on  which  he 
wrote,  than  to  pull  to  pieces  the  sophistries  of  his  antagonists. 
Mr.  Thornwell  has  not  entirely  avoided  this  inconvenience, 
though  in  his  case  it  is  not  a  very  serious  one,  and  is  less  felt  in 
the  latter  than  in  the  earlier  portions  of  his  work.  The  book 
exhibits  distinguished  al)ility  and  diligent  re'=;earch,  and  is 
not  only  a  valuable  accession  to  our  theological  literature,  but 
welcome  as  a  specimen  of  what  the  church  may  expect  from  its 
author. 

Among  the  blemishes  of  the  work  is  the  profusion  of  the  mere 
technicalities  of  logic.  The  words,  major,  and  minor  proposition, 
middle  term,  and  the  like,  are  of  too  frequent  occurrence.  It 
adds  nothing  to  the  perspicuity  of  the  argument,  to  say  that  one 
proposition  is  of  that  peculiar  species,  that  the  removal  of  the 
consequent  is  a  removal  of  the  antecedent  ;  or  that  another  "  is 
a  destructive  disjunctive  conditional."  We  do  not  wish  to  see  in 
a  painting,  the  pencil  marks  protruding  through  the  coloring ; 
nor  is  it  desirable  to  have  brought  constantly  to  view  in  actual 
discussion,  the  formulas  by  which  reasoning  as  an  art  is  taught 
in  the  schools.  AVhen  a  man  comes  to  fight,  it  is  easy  to  see 
whether  he  has  learned  to  fence,  without  his  exclaiming  at  every 
thrust  or  feint,  ^9rz5?2e,  tierce,  quart;  and  Professor  Thornwell's 
skill  in  logic  would  be  quite  as  apparent,  and  more  effective,  if 
he  could  forget,  as  we  doubt  not  he  soon  will  do,  its  technical 
terms. 

The  point  in  which  the  work  before  us  is  most  open  to  criti- 
cism, is  its  want  of  unity.  It  is  really  the  discussion  of  a  single 
question  :  Are  the  Apocrypha  a  part  of  the  inspired  writings  ? 
So  much  prominence,  however,  is  given  to  the  consideration  of 
the  infallibility  of  the  church,  as  to  exalt  it  into  a  separate  ques- 
tion. As  Romanists  rely  mainly  on  the  authority  of  the  church 
in  their  arguments  in  behalf  of  the  Apocrypha,  the  competency 
of  the  church,  in  their  sense  of  the  term,  authoritatively  to  de- 
cide the  question,  is  unavoidably  brought  into  the  discussion 


GROUND    OF     FAITH    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.  187 

But  still  it  is  a  subordinate  question,  in  tlie  present  instance, 
and  should  be  made  to  appear  so.  We  think  the  unity,  and 
of  course  the  force  of  Mr.  Thornwell's  argument,  would  be 
increased  by  treating  the  infallibility  of  the  church,  not  so 
distinctly  as  he  has  done,  but  in  strict  subordination  to  his  main 
jDurpose. 

We  also  regret  that  he  has  made  so  little  use  of  the  internal 
character  of  the  Apocrypha,  as  an  argument  against  their  in- 
spiration. In  his  original  essay  this  topic  is  adverted  to  ;  we  are 
surprised,  therefore,  not  to  see  it  brought  forward  in  this  larger 
work.  It  is  after  all  one  of  the  soundest,  and  of  all  others  per- 
haps the  most  effective  argument,  in  the  minds  of  ordinar}^ 
Christians,  against  the  divine  origin  of  these  writings.  Believers 
will  find  it  impossible  to  transfer  the  reverence  they  feel  for  the 
true  word  of  God,  commending  itself  as  it  does  to  their  reason, 
heart,  and  conscience,  to  writings  replete  with  silly  stories  and 
gross  contradictions.  We  advert  the  more  readily  to  what  we 
regard  defects  in  this  work,  because  we  think  it  will  become  a 
standard  book,  likely  to  be  often  reprinted  ;  we  therefore  wish  to 
see  it  as  perfect  as  may  be. 

The  question  whether  the  Apocrypha  are  inspired,  suggests 
the  wider  question  :  How  are  we  to  tell  whether  any  book  is  in- 
spired ;  or  on  what  ground  does  the  Christian  world  admit  that 
the  authors  of  the  Christian  Scriptures  spake  as  they  were  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  This  question  is,  in  many  respects,  anal- 
ogous to  the  question.  How  do  we  know  there  is  a  God  ?  or  that 
he  is  holy,  just  and  good  ?  How  do  we  know  that  we  are  bound 
to  obey  him,  or  that  the  moral  law  is  an  expression  of  his  will  ?  If 
these  questions  were  asked  different  persons,  they  would  probably 
give  very  different  answers,  and  those  answers  might  all  of  them 
be  correct,  though  not  all  adequate.  Various  as  these  answers 
might  be,  they  would  all  resolve  themselves  into  a  statement  in 
some  form,  of  the  self-evidencing  light  of  the  truths  affirmed. 
We  believe  there  is  a  God,  because  the  idea  of  such  a  being  is  so 
congruous  to  our  moral  nature  ;  so  necessary  as  a  solution  of  the 
facts  of  our  own  consciousness,  that  when  once  clearly  presented, 
we  can  never  rid  ourselves  of  the  conviction  of  its  truth  ;  nor  can 
we  shake  off"  our  sense  of  allegiance  to  him  or  deny  our  de- 
pendence. This  conviction  exists  in  the  minds  of  thousands  who 
have  never  analysed  it,  nor  inquired  into  its  origin  or  its  legit- 


188        GEOUND    OF    FAITH    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES. 

imacy.  And  when  that  inquuy  is  started,  they  refer  their  behef 
to  different  sources,  some  appeahug  to  the  evidence  afforded  of 
the  being  of  God  in  the  works  of  nature  ;  others  to  the  logical 
necessity  of  assuming  the  existence  of  an  intelligent  first  cause, 
and  others  to  their  sense  of  dependence,  or  to  other  facts  of  their 
moral  nature  ;  but  after  all,  it  is  apparent  that  the  conviction 
exists  and  is  influential,  before  any  such  examination  of  the 
grounds  on  which  it  rests,  and  is  really  independent  of  the  specific 
reasons  that  may  be  assigned  to  account  for  it. 

The  same  is  true  with  regard  to  moral  obligation.  The  fact 
that  we  are  bound  to  conform  to  the  moral  law  ;  that  we  ought 
to  love  God,  and  do  good  to  men,  is  admitted  and  cannot  be  de- 
nied. Why  we  are  thus  bound,  few  men  take  the  trouble  to  in- 
quire, and  if  they  did,  might  be  puzzled  to  give  an  answer,  and 
no  answer  they  could  devise  or  that  any  philosopher  could  sug- 
gest, would  increase  the  sense  of  obligation.  Some  answers,  and 
those  among  the  most  common,  would  really  weaken  it,  and  the 
best  could  only  render  it  more  enlightened,  by  bringing  into  the 
view  of  the  understanding,  facts  and  principles  already  existing 
and  operating,  undetected  or  unnamed,  in  our  own  conscious- 
ness. 

It  is  much  the  same  with  regard  to  the  Bible.  That  sacred 
volume  passes  among  tens  of  thousands  for  the  word  of  God, 
without  their  ever  thinking  of  asking  on  what  grounds  they  so 
regard  it.  And  if  called  upon  to  give  answer  to  such  a  question, 
unless  accustomed  to  the  work  of  self-inspection,  they  would 
hardly  know  what  to.  say.  This  hesitation,  however,  would  be 
no  decisive  e\ddence,  either  that  they  did  not  really  believe,  or 
that  their  faith  was  irrational,  or  merely  hereditary.  They  would 
find  the  same  difficulty  in  answering  either  of  the  other  questions 
to  which  we  have  referred.  How  do  we  know  there  is  a  God  ?  or 
How  do  we  know  that  his  law  is  binding  ?  It  is  very  possible 
that  the  mind  may  see  a  thing  to  be  true,  without  being  able  to 
prove  its  truth,  or  to  make  any  satisfactory  exhibition  of  the 
grounds  of  its  belief.  If  a  man  who  had  never  heard  of  the  Bible, 
should  meet  with  a  copy  of  the  sacred  volume,  and  address  him- 
self to  its  perusal,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  it  would  address  him 
in  the  same  tone  of  authority,  which  it  uses  towards  those  born 
in  the  bosom  of  the  Christian  church.  He  would  be  called  upon 
to  believe  its  doctrines,  to  confide  in  its  promises,  to  obey  its 


GEOUND     OF    FAITH    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.        189 

precepts.  He  would  be  morally  guilty  in  tlie  siglit  of  God,  if  lie 
did  not  ;  and  lie  would  be  regarded  as  a  wise  and  good  man  if  he 
did.  Beyond  controversy  then  the  book  must  contain  its  own 
evidence  of  being  the  word  of  God  ;  it  must  jirove  its  own  in- 
spiration, just  as  the  moral  law  proves  its  own  authority,  or  the 
being  of  God  reveals  itself  to  every  open  heart.  There  is  noth- 
ing mystical,  enthusiastic,  or  even  extraordinary  in  this.  A 
mathematical  work  contains  in  itself  the  evidence  of  whatever 
truth  belongs  to  its  reasonings  or  conclusions.  All  that  one  man 
can  do  for  another,  in  producing  conviction  of  its  truth,  is  to  aid 
him  in  understanding  it,  enabling  him  to  see  the  evidence  that 
is  in  the  book  itself.  The  same  may  be  said  of  any  work  of  art, 
or  of  any  production  of  genius.  Its  truthfulness,  its  claims  to  ad- 
miration, its  power  to  refine  or  jilease,  are  all  inherent  qualities, 
which  must  be  perceived,  in  order  to  be  really  believed.  So,  too, 
of  any  work  which  treats  of  our  moral  obligations  ;  no  matter 
who  wTote  it,  if  it  contains  truth,  xie  assent  to  it,  if  it  includes 
error,  we  reject  it  This  is  not  a  thing  which,  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word,  admits  of  proof.  The  only  possible  proof  of 
the  correctness  of  a  moral  doctrine,  is  to  make  us  see  its  truth  ;  its 
accordance  with  the  law  of  God,  the  supreme  standard,  and  with 
that  law  as  written  in  our  own  hearts.  Thus  in  the  case,  which 
we  have  supposed,  of  a  man's  reading  the  Bible  without  know- 
ing whence  it  came,  he  would,  if  properly  and  naturally  affected, 
be  convinced  of  all,  and  judged  of  all,  and  thus  the  secrets  of  his 
heart  being  made  manifest,  falling  down  on  his  face,  he  would 
worship  God,  and  report  that  of  a  truth,  that  book  is  not  the 
word  of  man,  but  the  word  of  God. 

He  would  find,  in  reading  the  Scriptures,  the  existence  of  God 
as  the  creator  and  governor  of  all  things,  always  presented  ;  his 
perfections,  as  infinitely  wise,  powerful,  and  good,  held  up  for 
his  adoration  and  confidence.  All  this,  no  matter,  whence  the 
book  came,  is  so  holy,  so  true,  so  consonant  to  right  reason  and 
right  feehng,  that  he  cannot  doubt  its  truth.  He  finds,  further, 
a  law  therein  revealed  as  obligatory  on  man,  which  is  holy,  just, 
and  good  ;  all  whose  requirements  as  soon  as  understood,  assert 
an  authority  over  his  conscience,  which  he  feels  to  be  legitimate 
and  supreme.  In  comparing  himself  with  that  standard  of  ex- 
cellence, he  finds,  that  in  all  things  he  has  come  short,  that  not 
only  in  innumerable  particular  acts,  but  in  the  inward,  habitual 


190        GROUND    OF    FAITH    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES, 

state  of  his  heart,  he  is  unholy.  This  conviction  is  unavoidably 
attended  with  a  sense  of  guilt  ;  he  feels  that  he  deserves  to  be 
punished,  nay,  that  a  moral  necessity  exists  for  such  punish- 
ment ;  he  would  gladly  punish  himself,  could  he  do  it  satisfac- 
torily, or  so  as  to  still  his  conscience.  This  sense  of  inward 
pollution  and  exposure  to  punishment,  prompts  to  strenuous  and 
continued  efforts  to  change  his  heart,  and  to  conform  his  life,  to 
the  high  standard  of  excellence  presented,  in  the  wonderful  book, 
which  has  revealed  him  to  himself,  that  has  made  him  know 
what  he  is,  and  in  what  relation  he  stands  to  Grod.  All  his  efforts 
however  vigorous,  or  however  long  sustained,  fail  of  success.  The 
power  of  evil  and  the  guilty  conscience  continue  ;  and  he  sinks 
down  into  a  state  of  hopeless  despondency.  In  reading  further, 
he  finds  that  this  book  tells  him  just  what  he  has  found  in  his 
own  experience  to  be  true  ;  that  the  heart  of  man  is  deceitful 
above  all  things  and  desperately  wicked  ;  that  there  is  none 
righteous,  no  not  one  ;  that  no  man  can  come  unto  God  except 
the  Father  draw  him  ;  that  we  must  be  made  new  creatures, 
born  not  of  the  will  of  man  but  of  God  ;  that  by  the  deeds  of  the 
law,  by  our  own  obedience  to  the  rule  of  duty,  no  man  can  be 
just  with  God ;  that  without  the  shedding  of  blood,  that  is, 
without  an  atonement,  there  is  no  remission  of  sins.  All  these 
things  are  true,  true  in  themselves,  true  independently  of  the  as- 
sertion of  them  in  the  word  of  God.  They  are  truths  which  have 
their  foundation  in  our  nature  and  in  our  relation  to  God.  Here 
then,  the  existence  and  perfections  of  God  ;  the  demands  of  the 
moral  law  ;  the  sinfulness  and  helplessness  of  men  ;  the  necessity 
of  holiness  and  of  an  atonement,  are  all  taught  in  this  book,  and 
when  so  taught  as  to  be  understood,  they  so  commend  them- 
selves to  the  conscience  that  they  cannot  be  denied.  They  are, 
therefore,  received  without  any  external  testimony  of  any  kind, 
to  authenticate  them  as  matters  of  divine  revelation.  Convinced 
of  these  truths,  our  supposed  reader  of  the  Bible  finds  that  in 
every  part  of  it,  provision  is  made  for  these  two  great  necessities 
of  man,  hoKness  and  atonement ;  they  are  everywhere  repre- 
sented as  necessary,  and  the  way  in  which  they  are  attained  is 
more  or  less  distinctly  unfolded.  The  Son  of  God  is  revealed  as 
coming  in  the  flesh,  dying  for  our  sins,  rcconciHng  us  to  God, 
securing  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  offering  eternal  life  to 
all  who  come  unto  God  by  Him.     There  is  in  the  character,  the 


GROUND     OF     FAITH    IN     THE     SCRIPTURES,        191 

conduct,  the  doctrines,  the  claims,  the  promises,  of  tlie  Ee- 
deemer,  such  majesty,  such  excellence,  such  authority  over  the 
heart  and  conscience,  such  a  divine  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the 
only  begotten  Son  of  God,  full  of  grace  and  truth,  that  every  one 
who  apprehends  that  glory,  feels  that  he  is  bound  to  honor  the 
Son  even  as  he  honors  the  Father ;  that  the  same  confidence, 
the  same  obedience,  the  same  love  are  due  to  the  Son  as  to  God, 
for  he  is  God  manifested  in  the  flesh.  If  it  is  absurd  to  say  that 
no  man  believes  in  God,  who  has  not  comprehended  some  philo- 
sophical argument  for  his  existence,  it  is  no  less  absurd  to  say 
that  no  man  can  rationally  believe  in  Christ,  who  has  not  been 
instructed  in  the  historical  arguments  which  confirm  his  mission, 
or  who  has  not  been  told  by  others  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God, 
We  believe  in  Christ,  for  the  same  reason  that  we  believe  in 
God.  His  character  and  claims  have  been  exhibited  to  us,  and 
we  assent  to  them  ;  we  see  his  glory  and  we  recognise  it  as  the 
glory  of  God,  This  exhibition  is  made  in  the  gospel ;  it  is  made 
to  every  reader  of  the  word.  And  when  such  a  reader,  though  he 
had  never  before  heard  of  the  Bible,  finds  this  glorious  per- 
sonage, ratifying  all  those  truths  which  were  latent  in  his  own 
consciousness,  and  needed  only  to  be  stated  to  be  recognised  as 
truths  ;  and  when  he  hears  him  say  that  he  came  to  give  his  life 
a  ransom  for  many,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him  shall  never 
perish,  but  have  eternal  life  ;  he  confides  in  him  with  humble 
and  entire  confidence.  And  when  he  further  hears  him  speak  of 
a  future  state  of  blessedness,  for  which,  by  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  men  are  prepared,  he  understands  some  of  the 
deepest  mysteries  of  his  nature,  the  obscure  apprehension  of  im- 
mortality, the  strange  mixture  of  longing  and  dread  in  reference 
to  a  future  state,  of  which  he  was  conscious  but  could  not  under- 
stand. Such  a  man  believes  the  gospel  on  the  highest  possible 
evidence;  the  testimony  of  God  himself  with  and  by  the  tiuth 
feo  his  own  heart ;  making  him  see  and  feel  that  it  is  truth.  The 
more  the  Bible  is  thus  studied,  the  more  it  is  understood  ;  the 
more  the  relation  of  its  several  parts,  the  excellence  of  its  precepts, 
the  suitableness  of  its  doctrines  and  promises,  the  correspondence 
of  the  experience,  which  it  details  or  demands,  with  the  exercises 
of  our  own  hearts,  are  appreciated,  the  more  firm  and  enlightened 
does  the  conviction  become  that  it  is  indeed  the  word  of  God, 
Of  this  evidence  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  which  is 


192        GKOUND    OF    FAITH    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES. 

contained  in  the  Scriptures  themselves,  and  which  by  the  Sjjirit 
of  God  is  revealed  and  applied  to  the  hearts  of  the  devout  readers 
of  the  Bible,  it  may  be  remarked,  in  the  first  place,  that  it  is  of 
itself  perfectly  adequate  as  the  foundation  of  a  rational  and  sav- 
ing faith,  and  that  it  applies  to  all  parts  of  the  sacred  volume  ; 
partly  because  it  is  found  in  all  parts,  and  partly  because  the 
different  portions  of  the  Bible,  the  historical,  doctrinal,  devo- 
tional, and  perceptive,  are  so  connected,  that  they  mutually  imply 
each  other,  so  that  one  cannot  be  rejected  without  doing  violence 
more  or  less  to  the  whole.  In  the  second  place,  this  evidence  is 
in  fact  the  ground  of  the  faith  of  all  the  true  people  of  Grod, 
whether  learned  or  unlearned.  AVhatever  other  evidence  they 
may  have,  and  which  in  argument  they  may  properly  adduce, 
they  still  are  believers,  in  the  true  sense  of  that  term,  only  so  far 
as  their  faith  rests  on  this  inward  testimony  of  Grod  with  the 
truth,  revealing  and  applying  it  as  truth  to  the  heart.  In  the 
third  place,  this  is  the  evidence  on  which  the  Scriptures  challenge 
universal  faith  and  obedience.  It  is  the  ground  on  which  they 
rest  their  claim,  and  on  which  they  pronounce  a  sentence  of  con- 
demnation on  all  who  do  not  believe,  as  not  of  God,  for  if  they 
were  of  God,  they  would  know  of  the  doctrine  whether  it  was  his 
or  not.  In  the  fourth  place,  it  is  obvious  that  this  evidence,  in 
all  its  fulness  and  force,  may  be  exhibited  to  a  man,  who  knew 
nothing  from  others  of  the  origin  of  the  Scriptures,  even  to 
one  who  should  read  them  for  the  first  time  in  a  desert  island. 
Such  a  man  being  convinced  by  this  evidence  that  the  Scriptures 
were  the  word  of  God  ;  or  finding  that  the  writers  who  pro- 
pounded these  truths,  and  who  exhibited  such  moral  excellence 
as  to  secure  his  entire  confidence,  declared  themselves  to  be  in- 
spired, constantly  disclaimed  being  the  discoverers  or  authors  of 
the  doctrines  which  they  taught ;  when  he  hears  them  always 
speaking  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  God,  as  his  mes- 
sengers, he  receives  their  declaration  with  full  credence.  How 
indeed  could  it  be  otherwise  ?  How  could  they  know  of  them- 
selves all  they  teach,  and  how  could  men  who  were  so  obviously 
sincere  and  holy,  be  false  witnesses  and  imposters  ?  Without 
going,  therefore,  beyond  the  Bible  itself,  the  conviction  may  be 
rationally  arrived  at,  and  is  in  fact  in  multitudes  of  cases,  with- 
out doubt  entertained,  that  its  authors  spake  as  they  were  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost. 


GKOUND     OF    FAITH    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.        193 

Let  US  suppose  tliat  a  man  tlius  convinced,  should  have  the 
opportunity  of  learning  the  history  of  the  Bible  ;  of  tracing  it  up 
with  certainty  to  the  times  of  the  apostles  ;  of  proving  with  his- 
toric accuracy,  that  the  books  composing  the  New  Testament, 
were  written  by  the  apostles  of  Christ  ;  that  to  these  men  their 
divine  master  expressly  promised  the  gift  of  inspiration  ;  that 
they  uniformly  claimed  that  gift,  saying.  He  that  is  of  Grod 
heareth  us,  and  he  that  is  not  of  God,  heareth  not  us  ;  that  this 
claim  was  authenticated  by  God  himself  bearing  them  witness 
with  signs,  and  wonders,  and  divers  mhacles  and  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  ;  that  effects  followed  their  ministry  which  admit 
of  no  rational  solution  but  their  being  the  messengers  of  God  ; 
that  all  they  did,  all  the  facts  they  announced,  all  the  effects 
they  produced,  or  which  attended  the  introduction  of  Christian- 
ity, had  been  predicted  centuries  before,  in  books  which  can  be 
proved  to  have  existed  at  that  antecedent  period  ;  nay  that  the 
predictions  in  those  books,  and  in  the  New  Testament  itself,  are 
in  some  cases,  in  the  course  of  fulfilment  before  our  own  eyes  ; 
and  finally,  that  the  claim  of  these'  messengers  to  inspiration, 
was  recognized  by  all  who  received  their  doctrines,  and  who  by 
their  faith  were  made  new  creatures  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  suppose 
all  this  to  be  proved  historically,  as  it  has  been  proved  a  thou- 
sand times,  it  may  be  that  the  faith  of  a  supposed  believer  might 
not  be  really  thereby  strengthened  ;  he  would  however  be  fur- 
nished with  an  answer  to  all  gainsayers,  and  would  be  able  to 
say,  in  the  spirit  of  our  Lord's  own  remonstrance,  If  ye  believe 
not  the  gospel  for  its  own  sake,  at  least  believe  it  for  these  works' 
sake 

With  regard  to  the  Old  Testament,  much  the  same  course  of 
remark  might  be  pursued.  The  writers  of  its  several  books 
claimed  to  be  the  messengers  of  God  ;  they  authenticated  that 
claim  (with  few,  if  any,  exceptions),  by  miracles  or  prophecy  ; 
they  taught  the  truth — truth  as  far  above  that  contained  in  any 
uninspired  writings,  as  the  heavens  are  above  the  earth  ;  the 
predictions  which  they  contain,  scattered  over  the  whole  volume, 
given  in  detached  parts,  and  at  long  intervals,  yet  all  concen- 
trating in  one  great  system,  have  been  fulfilled  and  are  still  ful- 
filling. And  besides  all  this,  every  part  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
were  in  every  form  recognised  as  the  word  of  God,  as  infallible, 
incapable  of  being  broken,  more  certain  of  accomplishment  than 

13 


194         GROUND    OF    FAITH    IN    THE    SCRIPTUEES. 

heaven  and  earth  of  continuance,  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles, 
of  whose  divine  authority,  or  divine  inspiration,  we  have  such 
abundant  evidence. 

Such  is  a  very  cursory  view  of  the  grounds  on  which  Protest- 
ants are  accustomed  to  rest  their  faith  in  the  inspiration  of  the 
books  which  they  recognise  as  the  word  of  God.  If  we  apply 
these  principles  to  the  Apocrypha,  what  is  the  result  .^  In  the 
first  place  their  authors  do  not  claim  to  be  inspired  ;  they  do 
not  come  before  the  people  as  the  messengers  of  God,  claiming 
faith  and  obedience,  on  pain  of  the  divine  displeasure,  and  con- 
firming that  claim  by  personal  holiness  or  by  mighty  works.  On 
the  contrary,  they  disclaim  any  such  authority,  or  speak  in  terms 
utterly  incompatible  with  it.  Then,  in  the  second  place,  there 
is  nothing  in  the  contents  of  these  writings,  which  leads  to  the 
assumption  of  their  being  inspired.  Some  of  them  are  historical, 
some  of  them  are  moral  essays  of  a  more  or  less  philosophical 
cast  ;  some  of  them  are  fables.  They  differ  very  much  in  value 
in  all  respects,  but  there  is  nothing  in  any  of  them  which  might 
not  be  expected  from  Jews  living  either  in  Palestine  or  Egypt, 
whose  opinions  had  been  more  or  less  modified  by  a  knowledge 
of  the  Oriental  or  Grecian  systems  of  philosophy.  They  are  just 
such  books  as  uninspired  men  under  their  circumstances  might 
be  expected  to  write.  Then,  on  the  other  hand,  they  often  con- 
tradict the  universally  recognised  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
or  are  at  variance  with  themselves  ;  they  contain  false  doctrines 
or  false  principles  of  morals  ;  or,  in  many  cases,  absurd  stories. 
How  can  such  books  be  received  as  the  word  of  God  ?  In  the 
third  place,  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  of  their  having 
been  received  as  inspired  by  the  contemporaries  of  their  authors, 
but  abundant  evidence  that  they  were  not  so  received.  This  is 
admitted  by  the  Romanists  themselves,  who  concede  that  they 
formed  no  part  of  the  Jewish  canon.  In  the  fourth  place,  they 
were  not  recognised  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  as  part  of  the 
word  of  God.  They  are  never  quoted  as  of  authority,  never  re- 
ferred to  as  "  Scripture,"  or  as  the  words  of  the  Spirit,  in  the 
New  Testament.  To  this  point  the  tenth  letter  in  Professor 
Thornwell's  book  is  devoted,  where  it  is  most  satisfactorily  dem- 
onstrated that  there  are  no  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
which  need  be  assumed  to  refer  to  any  corresponding  passage  in 
the  Apocrypha  ;  and  that  if  there  were,  it  would  no  more  prove 


GROUND    OF     FAITH    IN    THE     SCRIPTURES.  195 

their  inspiration,  than  the  inspiration  of  the  heathen  poets  can 
be  proved  from  Paul's  use  of  their  language,  or  the  inspiration  of 
Philo  from  the  coincidences  between  his  writings  and  the  lan- 
guage of  the  apostle  John.  In  the  fifth  place,  the  Apocrypha 
were  not  recognised  as  inspired  by  the  Christians  of  the  first  four 
centuries.  To  the  proof  of  this  point  Mr.  Thornwell  has  devoted 
five  letters,  from  the  fourteenth  to  the  eighteenth  both  included. 
In  these  letters  the  reader  will  find  a  laborious  and  accurate  ex- 
amination of  all  the  passages  quoted  from  the  early  Fathers  in 
support  of  the  authority  of  the  Apocrypha  ;  wherein  it  is  clearly 
shown  that  nothing  can  be  adduced  from  that  source,  which 
would  not  prove  the  inspiration  of  books  which  the  church  of 
Rome  rejects.  It  need  hardly  be  remarked  that  even  if  some,  or 
even  all  the  early  Fathers,  regarded  the  writings  in  controversy 
as  part  of  the  sacred  canon,  it  would  be  no  sufficient  proof  of 
their  inspiration.  That  they  received  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  as  of  divine  authority,  is  a  valid  argument  in  their 
behalf,  because  it  affords  satisfactory  evidence  that  those  books 
were  written  by  the  men  whose  names  they  bear,  of  whose  in- 
spiration we  have  abundant  proof,  and  their  testimony  that  the 
Apocrypha  were  written  by  their  reputed  authors  would  have  a 
certain  historic  value  ;  but  could  not  jirove  the  inspiration  of 
those  writintrs,  unless  we  knew  from  other  sources  that  those 
authors  were  inspired.  Bat  the  Fathers'  thinking  the  Apocrypha 
to  be  inspired  is  no  proof  that  the  apostles  so  regarded  them. 
The  apostles  are  not  to  be  responsible  for  all  the  doctrines  the 
Fathers  entertained.  This  testimony  in  behalf  of  the  Apocrypha, 
unsatisfactory  as  it  would  be,  cannot  be  adduced,  for  the  real  testi- 
mony of  the  early  church  is  strongly  against  the  inspiration  of  the 
writings  in  question.  In  proof  of  this  point,  we  refer  our  readers 
to  Mr.  Thornwell's  concluding  letter,  in  which  it  is  proved  that 
these  books  "  are  not  included  in  the  catalogues  given  by  Melito, 
bishop  of  Sardis,  who  flourished  in  the  second  century,  of  Origen, 
Athanasius,  Hilary,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Ephiphanius,  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  Ruffin,  and  others ;  neither  are  they  mentioned 
among  the  canonical  books  recognised  by  the  council  of  Laodicea." 
We  hardly  know  how  a  stronger  case  could  be  made  out,  than 
Professor  Thornwell  has  thus  made.  Nothinsr  seems  to  favor  the 
assumption  of  the  Apocrypha  being  inspired  ;  while  all  the 
evidence,  both  internal  and  external,  is  against  it.     But  have 


196        GROUND    OF     FAITH    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES. 

the  Eomanists  nothing  to  say  m  their  behalf  ?  Nothino;  that  is 
of  the  least  weight  with  a  Protestant.  They  do  inileed  refer  to 
what  they  regard  as  allusions  to  those  writings  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, which,  if  admitted,  would  only  prove  their  existence  at 
that  period,  which  no  one  denies.  They  further  refer  to  the  fact 
that  several  of  the  Fathers  quote  them,  and  quote  them  too  as 
"  holy  Scripture  ;"  but  this  expression  the  Fathers  often  use  in 
the  general  sense  of  religious,  as  opposed  to  profane  writings, 
and  apply  it  to  books  for  whose  inspiration  no  one  contends. 
The  main  dependence  of  the  Eomanists  is  the  authority  of  their 
own  church.  The  council  of  Trent  has  decreed  that  the  Apocry- 
pha were  written  by  the  inspiration  of  God,  and  of  course  those, 
and  those  only,  who  believe  that  council  to  have  been  infallible, 
bow  to  their  decision. 

This  brings  up  the  question  of  the  infallibility  of  the  church  ; 
much  too  wide  a  subject  to  be  here  entered  upon.  It  must  suf- 
fice to  show  in  a  few  words,  that  the  authority  of  the  council  of 
Trent,  is  no  sufficient  ground  of  faith  in  the  inspiration  of  the 
Apocrypha.  The  whole  doctrine  of  the  Eomanists,  as  to  the 
authority  of  that  council,  rests  on  a  series  of  gratuitous  and  un- 
scriptural  assumptions.  The  fundamental  error  of  Popery  and 
Puseyism,  is  transferring  to  the  body  of  external  professors  of 
Christianity,  that  is,  to  what  is  commonly  called  the  visible 
church,  what  the  Scriptures  say  of  the  church  of  God.  The  body 
to  which  the  promises  and  prerogatives  of  the  church  belong, 
according  to  Scripture,  antiquity,  and  the  best  men  even  of  the 
Eoman  communion  itself,  consists  of  true  believers,  of  those  who 
are  the  members  of  Christ's  body  and  partakers  of  his  Spirit, 
Christ  has  indeed  promised  to  preserve  his  church,  that  is,  his 
own  people,  from  all  flital  error  ;  to  lead  them  into  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  truth,  and  to  keep  them  through  faith  unto  eternal 
life.  But  how  is  this  promise  to  preserve  and  guide  his  people,  a 
promise  to  guide  those  who  are  not  his  people  ?  How  are  promises 
made  to  the  children  of  God,  promises  to  the  children  of  the  world  .5* 
How  are  assurances  given  to  those  who  are  born  of  the  Spirit,  who 
are  led  by  the  Spirit,  who  are  the  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
to  be  applied  to  the  unrenewed,  and  to  those  who  pertain  to  the 
church  only  in  name,  or  by  office  ?  It  is  only  by  denying  that 
there  is  any  such  thing  as  regeneration,  or  spiritual  religion,  or 
by  merging  all  that  the  Bible  says  of  the  new  birth,  of  union 


GEOUND     OF    FAITH    IN     THE     SCRIPTURES.        197 

with  Christ,  and  of  a  holy  life,  into  descriptions  of  church-rites 
and  church-ceremonies,  that  the  least  plausibility  can  be  given  to 
the  Komish  theory.  The  word  "  church"  is  always  a  collective 
term  for  the  called,  the  chosen,  the  true  people  of  God  ;  and 
what  is  said  of  the  church  and  of  its  prerogatives,  belongs  only 
to  those  who  are  thus  called  and  sanctified.  The  promises, 
therefore,  which  secure  the  church  from  apostacy,  and  which 
guaranty  her  perpetuity,  have  no  reference  to  those  who  are  not 
the  true  children  of  God,  any  more  than  the  promises  to  Israel, 
secured  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Sj^irit  to  the  natural  descendants  of 
Abraham. 

The  first  and  most  fruitful  fallacy  of  Rome,  therefore,  is 
founded  on  the  ambiguity  of  the  word  church,  which,  as  the 
recipient  of  the  j)romises,  means  the  true  people  of  God,  though 
in  ordinary  language,  it  is  often  applied  to  all  who  profess  to  be 
his  people,  or  call  themselves  Christians.  They  err  moreover  in 
extending  far  beyond  its  scriptural  limits,  the  promise  of  guid- 
ance as  made  to  the  church.  Christ  has  promised  to  purify  his 
church  ;  but  that  does  not  secure  perfect  holiness  for  all  its 
members,  in  this  life.  He  has  also  promised  to  guide  them  into 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth  ;  but  that  does  not  preserve  them 
from  all  ignorance  or  error  ;  it  only  secures  them  from  failing  of 
that  knowledge  which  is  essential  to  eternal  life.  The  only  sense 
in  which  even  the  true  church  is  infallible  is,  that  its  members 
are  kept  from  the  rejection  of  any  doctrine  essential  to  their  sal- 
vation. Rome  not  satisfied  with  attributing  this  infallibility  to 
a  body  Avhich  has  no  claim  to  it,  extends  it  to  all  matters  of  faith 
and  even  (according  to  one  school),  of  fact.  A  twofold  unscrip- 
tural  and  baseless  assumption. 

But  should  we  admit  that  the  external  or  visible  church  has 
been  invested  with  the  prerogative  of  infallibility,  how  would  that 
prove  the  Romish  doctrine  on  this  subject  ?  According  to  the 
ultramontane  doctrine,  the  pope  is  the  seat  and  centre  of  this 
prerogative  ;  according  to  the  Galilean  doctrine,  it  resides  in  the 
prelates.  But  for  either  of  these  assumptions  there  is  not  a 
shadow  of  claim  from  Scripture.  The  prelates  are  not  the  church, 
and  the  pope  is  not  the  church.  The  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  be  with  his  disciples,  to  guide  them  into  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  was  neither  made  nor  fulfilled  to  the  chief  officers  of  the 
chm'ch  alone.     It  was  addressed  to  all  the  disciples  ;  and  it  was 


198        GROUND     OF     FAITH     IN    THE    SCRIPTURES. 

fulfilled  in  the  apostolic  and  every  subsequent  age,  to  all  true 
believers.  Here  again  is  another  gratuitous  assumption,  neces- 
sary to  make  out  the  arguments  of  Komanists,  in  support  of  the 
infallibility  of  the  council  of  Trent. 

But  sujjposing  we  should  grant  that  the  prelates  are  the 
church,  that  to  them  in  their  collective  capacity,  the  gift  of  in- 
fallibility belongs,  still,  how  does  it  follow  that  the  council  of 
Trent  was  infallible  .^  All  the  prelates  were  not  assembled 
there  ;  all  did  not  concur  in  the  designation  of  the  members  of 
the  council  as  their  representatives  ;  all  have  not  concurred  in 
the  decisions  of  that  body.  On  the  contrary,  the  council  was 
composed  of  a  mere  handful  of  bishops,  a  small  minority  of  the 
prelates  of  Christendom  concurred  either  in  their  appointment 
or  in  their  decisions.  Admitting  then  that  infallibility  resides  in 
the  bishojDS  of  the  universal  church,  in  their  collective  capacity, 
which  is  the  most  rational  form  of  the  Romish  doctrine,  we  must 
believe  that  all  the  Greek,  all  the  Armenian,  all  the  Syrian,  all 
the  British,  oil  the  Swedish  prelates  are  out  of  the  church,  before 
we  can  believe  that  the  council  of  Trent  represented  the  church, 
and  was  the  organ  of  its  infallibility.  Can  this  be  proved  from 
Scripture  or  from  any  other  source  ?  Can  any  show  of  argument 
be  adduced  to  prove  that  recognition  of  the  authority  of  the 
bishop  of  Rome  over  all  other  bishops  and  churches,  is  necessary 
to  union  with  the  church  of  God  ?  Until  this  is  proved,  granting 
aU  their  principles,  the  infallibility  of  the  council  of  Trent  cannot 
be  established. 

We  can  afford,  however,  to  be  still  more  generous.  We  may 
grant  not  only  that  the  external  church  is  infallible ;  that  the 
prelates  are  the  church  ;  and  that  the  church  must  be  in  com- 
munion with  the  pope  and  under  his  direction,  and  yet  deny  that 
the  decisions  of  that  body  can  possibly  be  the  ground  on  which 
we  are  bound  to  believe  the  gospel,  or  to  admit  the  authority  of 
the  word  of  God.  There  are  two  fatal  objections  to  making  the 
authority  even  of  an  infallible  church,  the  ground  of  faith.  The 
first  is,  that  faith  founded  on  that  ground  cannot  be  anything 
more  than  mere  intellectual  assent  to  the  truth  of  a  proposition. 
But  such  a  fixitli  may  and  does  exist  in  the  minds  of  wicked  men, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  that  faith  which  is  connected  with,  salva- 
tion. If  a  man  comes  to  me  with  a  sealed  book,  and  assures 
me  that  it  is  inspired,  and  then  produces  such  credentials,  by 


GKOUND    OF    FAITH    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES.        199 

miracles  or  otherwise,  as  command  my  confidence  in  his  integrity 
and  competency  as  a  witness,  I  may  assent  to  the  proposition 
that  the  book  is  the  word  of  God,  but  I  am  not  thereby  a  better 
man.  Unless  I  know  the  truth  the  book  contains,  perceive  it  to 
be  true,  and  receive  it  in  love,  I  am  just  the  man  I  was  before  ; 
may  be  just  as  destitute  of  love  to  God,  and  just  as  unfit  for 
heaven.  All  that  an  infallible  church  could  do,  would  be  to  act 
the  part  of  the  supposed  witness.  Even  should  we  admit  her 
authority,  and  assent  to  her  decisions,  such  assent  having  no 
better  foundation  than  external  testimony,  can  have  no  moral 
character,  and  produce  no  moral  effect.  Such  a  faith  the  most 
wicked  men  that  ever  lived  may  have,  and  in  thousands  of  cases, 
have  had,  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  that  faith  to  which  the 
Scriptures  promise  eternal  life. 

'  The  second  objection  to  making  the  authority  of  the  church 
the  ground  of  faith,  is  that  it  is  entirely  inadequate.  The  gospel 
is  addressed  to  all  men  ;  all  who  hear  it,  are  bound  to  receive  it 
as  soon  as  it  is  presented  ;  but  how  are  all  men  to  know  that 
the  church  is  infallible  ?  No  man  can  be  required  to  beheve, 
before  the  evidence  on  which  his  faith  is  to  rest,  is  presented  to 
his  mind.  If  the  infallibility  of  the  church  is  the  ground  on 
which  he  is  to  receive  certain  writings  as  the  word  of  God,  that 
infallibility  must  be  established  before  he  can  be  required  to  be- 
lieve. But  how  is  this  to  be  done,  with  regard  to  the  great  mass 
of  mankind  .^  How  are  the  unlettered,  the  young,  the  heathen, 
to  be  rationally  convinced  that  the  church  is  infallible  ?  How 
are  they  to  know  what  the  church  is,  or  which  of  the  many 
bodies  so  called  is  the  true  church  ?  The  peasants  of  Sweden, 
Russia,  or  England,  never  heard  of  any  church,  other  than  their 
own,  and  yet  those  bodies,  according  to  Eome,  are  no  part  of  the 
church.  How  are  these  poor  peasants  to  find  that  out  ?  Or 
even  take  a  peasant  of  Italy  or  Spain,  how  does  he  know  that  the 
church  is  infallible  ?  His  priest  says  so.  How  is  he  to  know 
what  the  church  teaches  ?  what  his  priest  tells  him.  But  his 
priest  is  not,  even  according  to  the  Roman  theory,  inspired  ;  and 
it  is  admitted  he  may  be  a  bad  man.  Thus  this  boasted  infalli- 
bility of  the  church,  which  looks  so  imposing,  is,  as  it  is  brought 
in  actual  contact  with  the  minds  of  the  people,  nothing  more 
than  the  "  say  so"  of  a  parish  priest.  The  only  foundation  of 
faith  that  Rome  will  admit,  for  the  great  mass  of  her  children, 


200        GROUND     OF     FAITH    IN     THE    SCRIPTURES. 

is  the  testimony  of  a  man  who  is  admitted  to  be  faUible,  who  is, 
in  a  majority  of  cases,  ignorant,  and  often  wicked  !  This  is  the 
resting-place  of  the  precious  faith  of  God's  elect !  To  such  a 
miserable  conclusion  does  this  mighty  figment  of  an  infallible 
church  come  at  last.  This  is  popery.  For  bread  it  gives  a  stone ; 
and  for  an  egg,  a  scorpion.  To  teach  that  we  cannot  know  the 
Scriptures  to  be  the  work  of  God,  except  on  the  testimony  of  the 
church,  is  to  teach  we  cannot  see  the  sun  without  the  help  of  a 
candle. 


VI. 
THEORIES    OF    THE    CHURCH/ 

This  is  one  of  tlie  ablest  productions  of  tlie  Oxford  school. 
The  theoiy  of  the  church  which  that  school  has  embraced,  is 
here  presented  historically,  in  the  first  instance,  and  then  sus- 
tained by  arguments  drawn  from  the  design  of  the  church,  as  a 
divine  institute,  and  the  common  conclusion  is  arrived  at  and 
urged,  that  the  one  church  as  described  by  the  author,  is  the  only 
revealed  way  of  salvation.  Archdeacon  Manning's  work  has 
excited  no  little  attention  in  England  ;  and  its  republication  in 
this  country,  has  been  warmly  welcomed  by  the  Oxford  party  in 
America. 

We  do  not  propose  to  make  the  book  before  us  the  subject  of 
particular  examination  ;  but  simply  to  exhibit  the  theory  of  the 
church  which  it  advocates,  in  connection  and  contrast  with  that 
which  necessarily  arises  out  of  the  evangelical  system  of  doctrine. 
The  church  as  an  outward  organization  is  the  result  and  expres- 
sion of  an  inward  spiritual  life  ;  and  consequently  must  take  its 
form  from  the  nature  of  the  life  whence  it  springs.  This  is  only 
saying,  in  other  words,  that  our  theory  of  the  church  depends  on 
our  theory  of  doctrine.  If  we  hold  a  particular  system  of  doc- 
trine, we  must  hold  a  corresponding  theory  of  the  church.  The 
two  are  so  intimately  connected  that  they  cannot  be  separated  ; 
and  it  is  doubtful  whether,  as  a  matter  of  experience,  the  system 
of  doctrine  most  frequently  leads  to  the  adoption  of  a  particular 
view  of  the  church,  or  whether  the  view  men  take  of  the  church 
more  generally  determines  their  system  of  doctrines.    In  the  order 

'  Tho  Unity  of  the  Church.  By  Henry  Edward  Manning,  M.  A.,  Archdeacon  of 
Chichester.  New  York:  D.  Appleton  &  Co.,  1844.  pp.  305.— Princeton  Review, 
January,  1846. 


202  THEORIES     OF     THE      CHURCH. 

of  nature,  and  perhaps  also  most  frequently  in  experience,  the 
doctrine  precedes  the  theory. 

History  teaches  us  that  Christianity  appears  under  three 
characteristic  forms  ;  which  for  the  sake  of  distinction  may  be 
called  the  Evangelical,  the  Kitual,  and  the  Rationalistic.  These 
forms  always  co-exist  in  the  church,  and  are  constantly  striving 
for  the  mastery.  At  one  period,  the  one,  and  at  another,  another 
gains  the  ascendency,  and  gives  character  to  that  period.  Dur- 
ing the  apostolic  age,  the  evangelical  system  prevailed,  though 
in  constant  conflict  with  Rituahsm  in  the  form  of  Judaism. 
During  the  next  age  of  the  church  we  find  Eationalism  strug- 
gling for  the  ascendency,  under  the  form  of  Gnosticism  and  the 
philosophy  of  the  Platonizing  fathers.  Eitualism,  however,  soon 
gained  the  mastery,  which  it  maintained  almost  without  a 
struggle  until  the  time  of  the  Reformation.  At  that  period 
evangelical  truth  gained  the  ascendency  which  it  maintained  for 
more  than  a  hundred  years,  and  was  succeeded  on  the  continent 
by  Rationalism,  and  in  England,  under  Archbishop  Laud,  by 
Ritualism.  This  latter  system,  however,  was  there  pressed 
beyond  endurance,  and  the  measures  adopted  for  promoting  it 
led  to  a  violent  reaction.  The  restoration  of  Charles  II.  com- 
menced the  reign  of  the  Rationalistic  form  of  doctrine  in  Eng- 
land, manifesting  itself  in  low  Arminian  or  Pelagian  views, 
and  in  general  indifference.  This  continued  to  characterize  the 
church  in  Grreat  Britain,  until  the  appearance  of  Wesley  and 
Whitfield,  about  a  century  ago,  since  which  time  there  has  been 
a  constant  advance  in  the  prevalence  and  power  of  evangelical 
truth  bo^h  in  England  and  Scotland.  Within  the  last  ten  or 
fifteen  years,  however,  a  new  movement  has  taken  place,  which 
has  attracted  the  attention  of  the  wdiole  Christian  world. 

After  the  fall  of  Archbishop  Laud,  the  banishment  of  James 
II.  and  the  gradual  disappearance  of  the  non-jurors,  the  principles 
which  they  represented,  though  they  found  here  and  there  an 
advocate  in  the  Church  of  England,  lay  nearly  dormant,  until 
the  publication  of  the  Oxford  Tracts.  Since  that  time  their  prog- 
ress has  been  rapid,  and  connected  with  the  contemporaneous 
revival  of  Popery,  constitutes  the  characteristic  ecclesiastical 
features  of  the  present  generation.  The  church  universal  is  so 
united,  that  no  great  movement  in  one  portion  of  it,  can  be  des- 
titute of  interest  for  all  the  rest.     The  church  in  this  country, 


THEORIES     OF      THE     CHURCH.  203 

especially,  is  so  connected  with  tlie  church  in  Great  Britain,  there 
are  so  many  channels  of  reciprocal  influence  between  the  two, 
that  nothing  of  importance  can  happen  there,  which  is  not  felt 
here.  The  church  in  the  one  country  has  generally  risen  and 
declined  with  the  church  in  the  other.  The  spiritual  death 
which  gradually  overspread  England  and  Scotland  from  the  revo- 
lution of  1688  to  the  rise  of  Wesley,  in  no  small  measure  spread 
its  influence  over  America  ;  and  the  great  revival  of  religion  in 
England  and  Scotland  before  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  was 
contemporaneous  with  the  revival  which  extended  in  this  country 
from  Maine  to  Georgia.  The  recent  progress  of  Kitualism  in 
England,  is  accompanied  by  a  spread  of  the  same  principles  in 
America.  We  are  not,  therefore,  uninterested  spectators  of  the 
struggle  now  in  progress  between  the  two  conflicting  systems  of 
doctrines  and  theories  of  the  church,  the  Evangelical  and  the 
Ritual.  The  spiritual  welfare  of  our  children  and  of  the  country 
is  deeply  concerned. in  the  issue. 

The  difierent  forms  of  religion  to  which  reference  has  been 
made,  have  each  its  peculiar  basis,  both  objective  and  subjective. 
The  evangelical  form  rests  on  the  Scriptures  as  its  objective 
ground  ;  and  its  inward  or  subjective  ground  is  an  enlightened 
conviction  of  sin.  The  ritual  system  rests  outwardly  on  the 
authority  of  the  church,  or  tradition ;  inwardly  on  a  vague 
religious  sentiment.  The  rationalistic  rests  on  the  human 
understanding,  and  internally  on  indifference.  These  are  general 
remarks,  and  true  only  in  the  general.  Perhaps  few  jjersons  are 
under  the  influence  of  any  one  of  these  forms,  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  others  ;  in  very  few,  is  the  ground  of  belief  exclusively  the 
Bible,  tradition,  or  reason.  Yet  as  general  remarks  they  appear 
to  us  correct,  and  may  serve  to  characterize  the  comprehensive 
forms  which  the  Christian  religion  has  been  found  to  assume. 

The  evangelical  system  of  doctrine  starts  with  the  assumption 
that  all  men  are  under  the  condemnation  and  power  of  sin. 
This  is  assumed  by  the  sacred  writers  as  a  fact  of  consciousness, 
and  is  made  the  ground  of  the  whole  doctrine  of  redemption. 
From  the  guilt  of  sin  there  is  no  method  of  deliverance  but 
through  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  no  way  in  which  free- 
dom from  its  power  can  be  obtained,  but  through  the  indwelling 
of  his  Spirit.  No  man  who  is  not  united  to  Christ  by  a  living 
faith  is  a  partaker  either  of  his  righteousness  or  Spirit,  and  every 


204  THEOHIES    OF    THE     CHURCH. 

man  who  does  truly  believe,  is  a  partaker  of  both,  so  as  to  be  both 
justified  and  sanctified.  This  union  with  Christ  by  the  indwell- 
ing of  his  Spirit  is  always  manifested  by  the  fruits  of  righteous- 
ness ;  by  love,  joy,  peace,  long-sufferings  gentleness,  goodness, 
faith,  meekness,  temperance.  Where  these  fruits  of  the  Spirit 
are,  there,  and  not  elsewhere,  is  the  Spirit ;  and  where  the  Spirit 
is,  there  is  union  with  Christ ;  and  where  union  with  Christ  is, 
there  is  membership  in  his  body,  which  is  the  church.  True 
believers,  therefore,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  are  the  kXtjtoL 
the  KKXenTof,  the  uiKXrjala.  This  is  the  fundamental  principle  of 
the  evangelical  theory  respecting  the  church.  It  is  the  only  view 
at  all  consistent  with  the  evangelical  system  of  doctrine  ;  and  as 
a  historical  fact,  it  is  the  view  to  which  those  doctrines  have 
uniformly  led.  If  a  man  holds  that  the  church  is  the  body  of 
Christ  ;  that  the  body  of  Christ  consists  of  those  in  whom  he 
dwells  by  his  Spirit ;  that  it  is  by  faith  we  receive  the  promise  of 
the  Spirit  ;  and  that  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  is  always  mani- 
fested by  his  fruits  ;  then  he  must  hold  that  no  man  who  does 
not  possess  that  flxith  which  works  by  love,  is  united  to  Christ  or 
a  member  of  his  church  ;  and  that  all,  no  matter  how  else  they 
may  differ,  or  where  they  may  dwell,  who  have  that  faith,  are 
members  of  that  body,  which  is  his  church.  Such  is  the  unavoid- 
able conclusion  to  which  the  evangelical  system  leads  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  church.  The  body  to  whom  the  attributes,  the 
promises,  the  prerogatives  of  the  church  belong,  consists  of  all 
true  believers.  This  also  is  the  turning-point  between  the  evan- 
gelical and  ritual  theories,  on  which  all  other  questions  concern- 
ing the  church  depend.  To  the  question.  What  is  the  church  ? 
or.  Who  constitute  the  church  ?  the  Evangelicals  answer,  and 
must  answer.  True  believers.  Tlie  answer  of  the  Kitualists  is, 
The  organized  professors  of  the  true  religion  subject  to  lawful 
pastors.  And  according  as  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  answers 
is  adopted,  the  one  or  the  other  theory  with  its  consequences  of 
necessity  follows. 

The  church,  in  that  sense  in  which  it  is  the  heir  of  the  promises 
and  prerogatives  granted  in  the  word  of  God,  consists  of  true 
believers,  is  in  one  aspect  a  visible,  in  another  an  invisible  body. 
First,  believers  as  men,  are  visible  beings,  and  by  their  confession 
and  fruits  are  visible  as  believers.  "  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know 
thorn."      In  their  character  also  of  believers^  they  associate  for 


THEORIES    OF    THE     CHURCH.  205 

the  purposes  of  worsliip  and  discipline,  and  have  their  proper 
officers  for  instruction  and  government,  and  thus  appear  hefore 
the  woi'ld  as  a  visible  body.  And  secondly,  as  God  has  not  given 
to  men  the  power  to  search  the  heart,  the  terms  of  admission  into 
this  body,  or  in  other  words,  the  terms  of  Christian  communion, 
are  not  any  infallible  evidence  of  regeneration  and  true  faith,  but 
a  credible  jirofession.  And  as  many  make  that  profession  who 
are  either  self-deceived  or  deceivers,  it  necessarily  follows  that 
many  are  of  the  church,  who  are  not  in  the  church.  Hence 
arises  the  distinction  between  the  real  and  the  nominal,  or  as  it 
is  commonly  expressed,  the  invisible  and  the  visible  church.  A 
distinction  which  is  unavoidable,  and  which  is  made  in  all 
analogous  cases,  and  which  is  substantially  and  of  necessity 
admitted  in  this  case  even  by  those  whose  whole  theory  rests  on 
the  denial  of  it.  The  Bible  promises  great  blessings  to  Chris- 
tians ;  but  there  are  real  Christians  ancl  nominal  Christians  ; 
and  no  one  hesitates  to  make  the  distinction  and  to  confine 
the  application  of  these  promises  to  those  who  are  Christians 
at  heart,  and  not  merely  in  name.  The  Scriptures  promise 
eternal  life  to  believers.  But  there  is  a  dead  as  well  as  living 
faith  ;  there  are  true  believers  and  those  who  profess  faith  with- 
out possessing  it.  No  one  here  again  refuses  to  acknowledge  the 
propriety  of  the  distinction,  or  hesitates  to  say  that  the  promise 
of  eternal  life  belongs  only  to  those  who  truly  believe.  In  like 
manner  there  is  a  real  and  a  nominal,  a  visible  and  an  invisible 
church,  a  body  consisting  of  those  who  are  truly  united  in  Christ, 
and  a  body  consisting  of  all  who  profess  such  union.  Why 
should  not  this  distinction  be  allowed  ?  How  can  what  is  said 
in  Scripture  of  the  church,  be  applied  to  the  body  of  professors, 
any  more  than  what  is  said  of  believers,  can  be  applied  to  the 
liody  of  professed  believers  ?  There  is  the  same  necessity  for  the 
distinction  in  the  one  case,  as  in  the  other.  And  accordingly  it  is 
in  fact  made  by  those  who  in  terms  deny  it.  Thus  Mr.  Palmer, 
an  Oxford  writer,  says,  the  church,  as  composed  of  its  vital  and 
essential  members,  means  "  the  elect  and  sanctified  children  of 
God ;"  and  adds,  "  it  is  generally  allowed  that  the  wicked  belong 
only  externally  to  the  church." — Vol.  I.,  pp.  28,  58.  Even 
Romanists  are  forced  to  make  the  same  admission,  when  they 
distinguish  between  the  living  and  dead  members  of  the  church. 
As  neither  they  nor  Mr.  Palmer  will  contend  that  the  promises 


206  THEORIES    OF    THE     CHURCH. 

pertain  to  the  "  dead"  members,  or  those  who  are  only  exter- 
nally united  to  the  church,  but  must  admit  them  to  belong  to  the 
"  essential"  or  "  living"  members,  they  concede  the  fundamental 
principle  of  the  evangelical  theory  as  to  the  nature  of  the  church, 
viz.:  that  it  consists  of  true  believers,  and  is  visible  as  they  are 
visible  as  believers  by  their  profession  and  fruits,  and  that  those 
associated  with  them  in  external  union,  are  the  church  only  out- 
wardly, and  not  as  constituent  members  of  the  body  of  Christ 
and  temple  of  God  In  this  concession  is  involved  an  admission 
of  the  distinction  for  which  the  evangelical  contend  between  the 
church  invisible  and  visible,  between  nominal  and  real  Chris- 
tians, between  true  and  professing  believers. 

Such  being  the  view  of  the  nature  of  the  church  and  of  its  \dsi- 
bihty,  to  which  the  evangelical  system  of  doctrine  necessarily  leads, 
it  is  easy  to  see  wherein  the  church  is  one.  If  the  church  con- 
sists of  those  who  are  united  to  Christ  and  are  the  members  of 
his  body,  it  is  evident  that  the  bond  which  unites  them  to  him, 
unites  them  to  each  other.  They  are  one  body  in  Christ  Jesus, 
and  every  one  members  of  one  another.  The  vital  bond  between 
Christ  and  his  body  is  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  which  he  gives  to  dwell 
in  aU  who  are  united  to  him  by  faith.  The  indwelling  of  the 
Spirit  is  therefore  the  essential  or  vital  bond  of  unity  in  the 
church.  By  one  Spirit  w^e  are  all  baptized  into  one  body,  for  we 
are  partakers  of  that  one  Spirit.  The  human  body  is  one,  be- 
cause animated  by  one  soul ;  and  the  church  is  one  because 
actuated  by  one  Spirit. 

As  the  Spirit  wherever  he  dwells  manifests  himself  as  the 
Spirit  of  truth,  of  love,  and  of  holiness,  it  follows  that  those  in 
whom  he  dwells  must  be  one  in  faith,  in  love,  and  holy  obedi- 
ence. Those  whom  he  guides,  he  guides  into  the  knowledge  of 
the  truth,  and  as  he  cannot  contradict  himself,  those  under  his 
guidance  must  in  all  essential  matters  believe  the  same  truths. 
And  as  the  Spirit  of  love,  he  leads  all  under  his  influence  to  love 
the  same  objects,  the  same  God  and  Father  of  all,  the  same 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  ;  and  to  love  each  other  as  brethren.  This 
inward,  spiritual  union  must  express  itself  outwardly,  in  the 
profession  of  the  same  faith,  in  the  cheerful  recognition  of  all 
Christians  as  Christians,  that  is,  in  the  communion  of  saints, 
and  in  mutual  subjection.  Every  individual  Christian  recog- 
nizes the  right  of  his  fellow  Christians  to  exercise  over  hini  a 


THEORIES    OF     THE     CHURCH.  207 

watch  and  care,  and  feels  his  obligation  to  submit  to  them  in  the 
Lord. 

Since,  however,  the  church  is  too  widely  diffused  for  the  whole 
to  exercise  their  watch  and  care  over  each  particular  part,  there 
is  a  necessity  for  more  restricted  organizations.  Believers  there- 
fore of  the  same  neighborhood,  of  the  same  province,  of  the  same 
nation,  may  and  must  unite  by  some  closer  bond  than  that 
which  externally  binds  the  church  as  a  whole  together.  The 
church  of  England  is  one,  in  virtue  of  its  subjection  to  a  com- 
mon head,  and  the  adoption  of  common  formularies  of  worship 
and  discipline.  This  more  intimate  union  of  its  several  parts 
with  each  other,  does  not  in  any  measure  violate  its  unity  with 
the  Episcopal  body  in  this  country.  And  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  the  United  States,  though  subject  to  its  own  peculiar 
judicatories,  is  still  one  with  the  church  of  Scotland.  It  is  evi- 
dent, and  generally  conceded,  that  there  is  nothing,  in  indepen- 
dent organization,  in  itself  considered,  inconsistent  with  unity, 
so  long  as  a  common  faith  is  professed,  and  mutual  recognition 
is  preserved.  And  if  independent  organization  on  account  of 
difference  of  locality  or  of  civil  relations,  is  compatible  with 
unity,  so  also  is  independent  organization  on  tlie  ground  of  di- 
versity of  language.  The  former  has  its  foundation  in  expe- 
diency and  convenience,  so  has  the  latter.  It  is  not  true,  there- 
fore, as  Ritualists  teach,  that  there  cannot  be  two  independent 
churches,  in  the  same  place.  EngHshmeu  in  Germany  and  Ger- 
mans in  England  may  organize  churches  not  in  organic  con- 
nection with  those  around  them,  with  as  much  propriety  as 
Episcopalians  in  England  and  Episcopalians  in  Scotland  may 
have  independent  organizations. 

Still  further,  as  independent  or  separate  organization  is  ad- 
mitted to  be  consistent  with  true  unity,  by  all  but  Romanists,  it 
follows  that  any  reason  not  destructive  of  the  principle  of  unity, 
may  be  made  the  ground  of  such  separate  organization  ;  not 
merely  difference  as  to  location,  or  diversity  of  language,  but 
diversity  of  opinion.  It  is  on  all  hands  conceded  that  there  may 
be  differeYice  of  opinion,  within  certain  limits,  without  violating 
unity  of  faith  ;  and  it  is  also  admitted  that  there  may  be  inde- 
pendent organization,  for  considerations  of  convenience,  with- 
out violating  the  unity  of  communion.  It  therefore  follows, 
that  where  such  a  diversity  of  opinion  exists,  as  to  render  such 


208  THEORIES    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

separate  organization  convenient,  the  unity  of  tlie  clinrcli  is  not 
violated  by  such  separation.  Diversity  of  opinion  is  indeed  an 
evidence  of  imperfection,  and  therefore  such  separations  arc  evil, 
so  far  as  they  are  evidence  of  want  of  perfect  union  in  faith. 
But  they  are  a  less  evil,  than  either  hypocrisy  or  contention  ;  and 
therefore,  the  diversity  of  sects,  which  exists  in  the  Christian 
world,  is  to  he  regarded  as  incident  to  imjoerfect  knowledge  and 
imperfect  sanctification.  They  are  to  he  deplored,  as  every  other 
evidence  of  such  imperfection  is  to  he  regretted,  yet  the  evil  is 
not  to  be  magnified  above  its  just  dimensions.  So  long  as  unity 
of  faith,  of  love,  and  of  obedience  is  ])reserved,  the  unity  of  the 
church  is  as  to  its  essential  principle  safe.  It  need  hardly  be  re- 
marked, that  it  is  admitted  that  all  separate  organization  on  in- 
adequate grounds,  and  all  diversity  of  opinion  aifecting  import- 
ant doctrines,  and  all  want  of  Christian  love,  and  especially  a 
sectarian,  unchurching  spirit,  are  opposed  to  the  unity  of  the 
church,  and  either  mar  or  destroy  it  according  to  their  nature. 

The  sense  in  which  the  church  is  catholic  depends  on  the  sense 
in  which  it  is  one.  It  is  catholic  only  as  it  is  one.  If  its  unity, 
therefore,  depends  on  subjection  to  one  visible  head,  to  one 
supreme  governing  tribunal,  to  the  adoption  of  the  same  form  of 
organization,  then  of  course  its  extent  or  catholicity  is  limited 
by  these  conditions.  If  such  be  the  nature  of  its  oneness,  then 
all  not  subject  to  such  visible  head,  or  governing  tribunal,  or  who 
do  not  adopt  the  form  of  government  assumed  to  be  necessary, 
are  excluded  from  the  church.  But  if  the  unity  of  the  church 
arises  from  union  with  Christ  and  the  indwelling  of  his  Spirit, 
then  all  who  are  thus  united  to  hhn,  are  members  of  his  churcli, 
no  matter  what  their  external  ecclesiastical  connections  may  be, 
or  whether  they  sustain  any  such  relations  at  all.  And  as  all 
really  united  to  Christ  are  the  true  church,  so  all  who  profess 
such  union  by  professing  to  receive  his  doctrines  and  obey  his 
laws,  constitute  the  professing  or  visible  church.  It  is  plain, 
therefore,  that  the  evangelical  are  the  most  truly  catholic,  be- 
cause, embracing  in  their  definition  of  the  church  all  who  profess 
the  true  religion,  they  include  a  far  wider  range  in  the  church 
catholic,  than  those  who  confine  their  fellowship  to  those  who 
adopt  the  same  form  of  government,  or  are  subject  to  the  same 
visible  head. 

It  is  easy  to  see  how,  according  to  the  evangelical  system,  the 


THEORIES    OF     THE     CHURCH.  209 

question,  What  is  a  true  churcli  ?  is  to  be  answered.  Starting 
with  the  principle  that  all  men  are  sinners,  that  the  only  method 
of  salvation  is  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  all  who  believe 
in  him,  and  show  the  fruits  of  faith  in  a  holy  life,  are  the  chil- 
dren of  God,  the  called  according  to  his  purpose,  that  is,  in  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament,  the  KXrjrolj  the  t/cKA^/crta,  that 
system  must  teach  that  all  true  believers  are  members  of  the  true 
church,  and  all  professors  of  the  true  faith  are  members  of  the 
visible  church.  This  is  the  only  conclusion  to  which  that  sys- 
tem can  lead.  And  therefore  the  only  essential  mark  of  a  true 
church  which  it  can  admit,  is  the  profession  of  the  true  religion. 
Any  individual  man  who  makes  a  credible  profession  of  religion 
we  are  bound  to  regard  as  a  Christian  ;  any  society  of  such  men, 
united  for  the  purpose  of  worship  and  discipline,  we  are  bound  to 
regard  as  a  church.  As  there  is  endless  diversity  as  to  the  de- 
gree of  exactness  with  which  individual  Christians  conform,  in 
their  doctrines,  spirit,  and  deportment,  to  the  word  of  God,  so 
there  is  great  diversity  as  to  the  degi-ee  in  which  the  different 
churches  conform  to  the  same  standard.  But  as  in  the  case  of 
the  individual  professor  we  can  reject  none  who  does  not  reject 
Christ,  so  in  regard  to  churches,  we  can  disown  none  who  holds 
the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel. 

Against  this  simple  and  decisive  test  of  a  true  church  it  is  ob- 
jected on  the  one  hand,  that  it  is  too  latitudinarian.  The  force 
of  this  objection  depends  upon  the  standard  of  liberality  adopted. 
It  is  of  course  too  latitudinarian  for  Romanists  and  High  Church- 
men, as  well  as  for  rigid  sectarians.  But  is  it  more  liberal  than 
the  Bible,  or  than  our  own  Confession  of  Faith  ?  Let  any  man 
decide  this  question  by  ascertaining  what  the  Bible  teaches  as 
the  true  answer  to  the  question.  What  is  a  Christian  ?  And 
what  is  a  church  ?  You  cannot  possibly  make  your  notion  of  a 
church  narrower  than  your  notion  of  a  Christian.  If  a  true 
Christian  is  a  true  believer,  and  a  professed  believer  is  a  profess- 
ing Christian,  then  of  course  a  true  church  is  a  body  of  true  Chris- 
tians, a  professing  or  visible  church  is  a  body  of  professing  Chris- 
tians. This  is  the  precise  doctrine  of  our  standards,  which  teach 
that  the  church  consists  of  all  those  who  profess  the  true  religion. 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  it  is  objected  that  it  cannot  be  ex- 
pected of  ordinary  Christians,  that  they  should  decide  between  the 
conflicting  creeds  of  rival  churches,  and  therefore  the  profession  of 

14 


210  THEORIES    OF     THE    CHURCH. 

the  triitli  cannot  be  the  mark  of  a  true  church.  To  this  objection 
it  may  be  answered  first,  that  it  is  only  the  plain  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  the  gospel  which  are  necessary  to  salvation,  and  therefore 
it  is  the  possession  of  those  doctrines  alone  which  is  necessary  to 
establish  the  claim  of  any  society  to  be  regarded  as  a  portion  of  the 
true  church.  Secondly,  that  the  objection  proceeds  on  the  assump- 
tion that  such  doctrines  cannot  by  the  people  be  gathered  from 
the  word  of  God.  If,  however,  the  Scriptures  are  the  rule  of 
faith,  so  plain  that  all  men  may  learn  from  them  what  they  must 
believe  and  do  in  order  to  be  saved,  then  do  they  furnish  an 
available  standard  by  which  they  may  judge  of  the  faith  both  of 
individuals  and  of  churches.  Fourthly,  this  right  to  judge,  and 
the  promise  of  divine  guidance  in  judging,  are  given  in  the  Scrip- 
ifUres  to  all  the  people  of  God,  and  the  duty  to  exercise  the  right 
is  enjoined  upon  them  as  a  condition  of  salvation.  They  are  pro- 
nounced accursed  if  they  do  not  try  the  spirits,  or  if  they  receive 
any  other  gospel  than  that  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  And  fifthly, 
this  doctrinal  test  is  beyond  comparison  more  easy  of  application 
than  any  other.  How  are  the  unlearned  to  know  that  the  church 
with  wliich  they  are  connected  has  been  derived,  without  schism 
or  excommunica|:ion,  fiom  the  churches  founded  by  the  apostles  ? 
What  can  they  tell  of  the  apostolical  succession  of  pastors  ? 
These  are  mere  historical  questions,  the  decision  of  which  re- 
quires great  learning,  and  involves  no  test  of  character,  and  yet 
the  salvation  of  men  is  made  to  depend  on  that  decision.  All 
the  marks  of  the  church  laid  down  by  Romanists  and  High 
Churchmen,  are  liable  to  two  fatal  objections.  They  can  be  veri- 
fied, if  at  all,  only  by  the  learned.  And  secondly,  when  verified, 
they  decide  nothing.  A  church  may  have  been  originally  founded 
by  the  apostles,  and  possess  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  pas- 
tors, and  yet  be  now  a  synagogue  of  Satan. 

The  theory  of  the  church,  then,  which  of  necessity  follows 
from  the  evangelical  system  of  doctrine  is,  that  all  who  really 
believe  the  gospel  constitute  the  true  church,  and  all  who  pro- 
fess such  faith  constitute  the  visible  church  ;  that  in  virtue  of 
the  profession  of  this  common  faith,  and  of  allegiance  to  the 
same  Lord,  they  are  one  body,  and  in  this  one  body  there  may 
rightly  be  subordinate  and  more  intimate  unions  of  certain  parts, 
for  the  purposes  of  combined  action,  and  of  mutual  oversight  a.nd 
consolation.     When  it  is  said,  in  our  Confession  of  Faith,  that 


THEORIES    OF    THE    CHURCH.  211 

out  of  this  visible  cliurch,  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  sal- 
vation, it  is  only  saying  that  there  is  no  salvation  without  the 
knowledge  and  profession  of  the  gospel ;  that  there  is  no  other 
name  by  which  we  must  be  saved,  but  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ. 
The  proposition  that  "out  of  the  church  there  is  no  salvation" 
is  true  or  false,  liberal  or  illiberal,  according  to  the  latitude  given 
to  the  word  church.  There  was  not  long  since,  and  probably 
there  is  still,  in  New  York  a  little  society  of  Sandemanian  Bap- 
tists, consisting  of  seven  persons,  two  men  and  five  women,  who 
hold  that  they  constitute  the  whole  church  in  America.  In  their 
mouths  the  proposition  above  stated  would  indeed  be  restrictive. 
In  the  mouth  of  a  Eomanist,  it  means  there  is  no  salvation 
to  any  who  do  not  belong  to  that  body  which  acknowledges 
the  Pope  as  its  head.  In  the  mouths  of  High  Churchmen,  it 
means  that  there  is  no  sah^ation  to  those  who  are  not  in  sub- 
jection to  some  prelate  who  is  in  communion  with  the  church 
catholic.  While  in  the  mouths  of  Protestants,  it  means  there  is 
no  salvation  without  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 

The  system,  which  for  the  sake  of  distinction  has  been  called 
the  Kitual,  agrees  of  course  with  the  Evangelical  as  to  many 
points  of  doctrine.  It  includes  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  of 
the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  Grod,  of  original  sin,  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  as  a  satisfaction  to  satisfy  divine  justice,  of  the  super- 
natural influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regeneration  and  sanctifi- 
cation,  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  and  of  an  eternal  judgment. 
The  great  distinction  lies  in  the  answer  which  it  gives  the  ques- 
tion. What  must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?  or  by  what  means  does  the 
soul  become  interested  in  the  redemption  of  Christ  ?  According 
to  the  Evangelical  system,  it  is  faith.  Every  sinner  who  hears 
the  gospel  has  unimpeded  access  to  the  Son  of  God,  and  can,  in 
the  exercise  of  faith  and  repentance,  go  immediately  to  him,  and 
obtain  eternal  life  at  his  hands.  According  to  the  Eitual  system, 
he  must  go  to  the  priest ;  the  sacraments  are  the  channels  of 
grace  and  salvation,  and  the  sacraments  can  only  be  lawfully  or 
effectively  administered  by  men  prelatically  ordained.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  priestly  character  of  the  Christian  ministry,  therefore, 
is  one  of  the  distinguishing  characteristics  of  the  Eitual  system. 
A  priest  is  a  man  ordained  for  men,  in  things  pertaining  to  God, 
to  offer  gifts  and  sacrifices.  The  very  nature  of  the  office  sup- 
poses that   those  for  whom  he   acts,  have  not  in  themselves 


212  THEORIES    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

liberty  of  access  to  God  ;  and  therefore  the  Eitual  system  is 
founded  on  the  assumption  that  we  have  not  this  liberty  of 
drawing  nigh  to  Grod.  It  is  only  by  the  ministerial  intervention 
of  the  Christian  priesthood,  that  the  sinner  can  be  reconciled 
and  made  a  partaker  of  salvation.  Here  then  is  a  broad  line  of 
distinction  between  the  two  systems  of  doctrines.  This  was  one 
of  the  three  great  doctrines  rejected  by  Protestants,  at  the  time 
of  the  Reformation.  They  affirmed  the  priesthood  of  all  believ- 
ers, asserting  that  all  have  access  to  God  through  the  High  Priest 
of  their  profession,  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  they  denied  the 
official  priesthood  of  the  clergy. 

The  second  great  distinction  between  the  two  systems  of  doc- 
trine, is  the  place  they  assign  the  sacraments.  The  Evangelical 
admit  them  to  be  efficacious  signs  of  grace,  but  they  ascribe  their 
efficacy  not  to  any  virtue  in  them  or  in  him  by  whom  they  are 
administered,  but  to  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  in  them  that  do 
by  faith  receive  them.  Ritualists  attribute  to  them  an  inherent 
virtue,  an  opus  operatum  efficacy,  independent  of  the  moral  state 
of  the  recipient.  According  to  the  one  system,  the  sacraments 
are  necessary  only  as  matters  of  precept  ;  according  to  the  other, 
they  have  the  necessity  of  means.  According  to  the  one  we  are 
required  to  receive  baptism,  just  as  we  are  under  obligation  to 
keej)  the  Sabbath,  or  as  the  Jews  were  required  to  be  circum- 
cised, and  yet  we  are  taught  that  if  any  man  kept  the  law,  his 
uncircumcision  should  be  counted  for  circumcision.  And  thus 
also,  if  any  one  truly  repents  and  believes,  his  want  of  baptism 
cannot  make  the  promise  of  God  of  none  eifect.  The  neglect  of 
such  instituted  rites  may  involve  more  or  less  sin,  or  none  at  all, 
according  to  the  circumstances.  It  is  necessary  only  as  obedience 
to  any  other  positive  institution  is  necessary;  that  is  as  a  mat- 
ter of  duty,  the  non-performance  of  which  ignorance  or  disability 
may  palliate  or  excuse.  According  to  the  latter  system,  how- 
ever, we  are  required  to  receive  baptism  because  it  is  the  only 
appointed  means  of  conveying  to  us  the  benefits  of  redemption. 
It  is  of  the  same  necessity  as  faith.  It  is  a  sine  qua  7ion.  This 
alters  the  whole  nature  of  the  case,  and  changes  in  a  great  meas- 
ure the  plan  of  redemption. 

The  theory  of  the  church  connected  with  the  Ritual  system 
of  doctrine,  that  system  which  makes  ministers  priests,  and  the 
sacraments  the  only  appointed  channels  of  communicating  to 


THEORIES    OF    THE    CHURCH.  213 

men  the  benefits  of  redemption,  is  implied  in  the  nature  of  the 
doctrines  themselves.  It  makes  the  church  so  prominent  that 
Christ  and  the  truth  are  eclipsed.  This  made  Dr.  Parr  call  the 
whole  system  Churchianity,  in  distinction  from  Christianity. 

If  our  Lord,  when  he  ascended  to  heaven,  clothed  his  apostles 
with  all  the  power  which  he  himself  possessed  in  his  human 
nature,  so  that  they  were  to  the  church  what  he  himself  had 
been,  its  infallible  teachers  and  the  dispensers  of  pardon  and 
grace  ;  and  if  in  accordance  with  that  assumption,  the  apostles 
communicated  this  power  to  their  successor's,  the  prelates,  then  it 
follows  that  these  prelates,  and  those  whom  they  may  authorize 
to  act  in  their  name,  are  the  dispensers  of  truth  and  salvation, 
and  communion  with  them,  or  subjection  to  their  authority,  is 
essential  to  union  with  the  church  and  to  eternal  life.  The 
church  is  thus  represented  as  a  store-house  of  divine  grace ; 
whose  treasures  are  in  the  custody  of  its  officers,  to  be  dealt  out 
by  them,  and  at  their  discretion.  It  is  like  one  of  the  rich  con- 
vents of  the  middle  ages,  to  whose  gates  the  people  repaired  at 
stated  times  for  food.  The  convent  was  the  store-house.  Those 
who  wanted  food  must  come  to  its  gates.  Food  was  given  at  the 
discretion  of  its  officers,  to  what  persons  and  on  what  conditions 
they  saw  fit.  To  obtain  supplies,  it  was  of  course  necessary  to 
recognize  the  convent  as  the  depository,  and  its  officers  as  the 
distributers  ;  and  none  who  refused  such  recognition,  could  be  fed 
from  its  stores.  The  analogy  fails  indeed  as  to  an  essential 
point.  Food  could  be  obtained  elsewhere  than  at  the  convent 
gates  ;  and  none  need  apply,  who  did  not  choose  to  submit  to 
the  prescribed  conditions.  Whereas,  according  to  Ritualists, 
the  food  of  the  soul  can  be  obtained  nowhere  but  at  the  door  of 
the  church  ;  and  those  who  refuse  to  receive  it  there,  and  at  the 
hands  of  authorized  ministers,  and  on  the  terms  they  prescribe, 
cannot  receive  it  at  all.  Unless  in  communion  of  the  church  we 
cannot  he  saved  ;  and  unless  in  subjection  to  prelates  deriving 
the  gift  of  the  Spirit  by  regular  succession  from  the  apostles,  we 
cannot  be  in  communion  of  the  church.  The  subjection  to  the 
bishop,  therefore,  is  an  indispensable  condition  of  salvation.  He 
is  the  centre  of  unity  ;  the  bond  of  union  between  the  believer 
and  the  church  and  thus  with  Christ. 

The  unity  of  the  church,  according  to  this  theory,  is  no  longer 
a  spiritual  union  ;  not  a  unity  of  faith  and  love,  but  a  union 


214  THEORIES    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

of  association,  a  union  of  connection  witii  the  autliorizcd  dis- 
pensers of  saving  grace.  It  is  not  enough  for  any  society  of  men 
to  show  that  they  are  united  in  faith  with  the  apostles,  and  in 
heart  with  all  the  people  of  Grod,  and  with  Christ  by  the  indwell- 
ing of  his  Spirit,  as  manifested  by  his  fruits,  they  cannot  he  rec- 
ognized as  any  portion  of  the  true  church,  unless  they  can  prove 
historically  their  descent  as  a  society  from  the  apostles  through  a 
line  of  bishops.  They  must  prove  themselves  a  church,  just  as 
a  man  proves  his  title  to  an  estate.  No  church,  says  Mr.  Palmer, 
not  founded  by  the  apostles,  or  regularly  descended  from  such  a 
church  without  separation  or  excommunication,  can  be  considered 
a  true  church  ;  and  every  society  that  can  make  out  such  a  de- 
scent, is  a  true  church,  for  a  church  can  only  cease  to  be  united 
to  Christ  by  its  own  act  of  separation,  or  by  the  lawful  judgment 
of  others.     Vol.  I.,  p.  84. 

This  also  is  what  is  meant  by  apostolicity  as  an  attribute  and 
mark  of  the  church.  A  church  is  not  apostolical  because  it  holds 
the  doctrines,  and  conforms  to  the  institutions  of  the  apostles, 
but  because  it  is  historically  derived  from  them  by  an  uninter- 
rupted descent.  "Any  society  which  is  in  fact  derived  from  the 
apostles,  must  be  so  by  spiritual  propagation,  or  derivation,  or 
union,  not  by  separation  from  the  apostles  or  the  churches 
actually  derived  from  their  preaching,  under  pretence  of  estab- 
lishing a  new  system  of  supposed  apostolic  perfection.  Deriva- 
tion from  the  apostles  is,  in  the  former  case,  a  reality,  just  as 
much  as  the  descent  of  an  illustrious  family  from  its  original 
founder.  In  the  latter  case  it  is  merely  an  assumption  in 
which  the  most  essential  links  of  the  genealogy  are  wanting." 
Palmer,  Vol.  I.,  p.  IGO.  This  descent  must  be .  through  pre- 
lates, who  are  the  bonds  of  connection  between  the  apostles 
and  the  different  portions  of  the  one  catholic  and  apostolic 
church.  Without  regular  consecration  there  can  be  no  bishop  ; 
and  without  a  bishop  no  church,  and  out  of  the  church  no  sal- 
vation. 

The  application  of  these  principles  as  made  by  their  advocates, 
reveals  their  nature  and  importance,  more  distinctly  than  any 
mere  verbal  statement  of  them.  The  Methodists,  for  example, 
though  they  adopt  the  doctrinal  standards  of  i^iQ  church  of  Eng- 
land, and  have  the  same  form  of  government,  are  not,  and  never 
can  become,  according  to  this  tlieory,  a  part  of  the  church,  be- 


THEORIES    OF    THE    CHUROH.  215 

cause  tlie  line  of  descent  was  broken  by  Wesley.  He  was 
but  a  presbyter,  and  could  not  continue  the  succession  of  the 
ministry.  A  fatal  flaw  thus  exists  in  their  ecclesiastical  ped- 
igree, and  they  are  hopelessly  cut  off  from  the  church  and  from 
Balvation. 

The  Roman  and  Eastern  churches,  on  the  contrary,  are  de- 
clared to  be  true  churches,  because  descended  from  the  com- 
munions founded  by  the  apostles,  and  because  they  have  never 
been  separated  from  the  church  catholic  either  by  voluntary 
secession  or  by  excommunication.  The  Nestorians,  on  the 
other  hand,  are  declared  to  be  no  part  of  the  true  church ;  for 
though  they  may  now  have  the  orthodox  faith,  and  though  they 
have  preserved  the  succession  of  bishops,  they  were  excom- 
municated in  the  fifth  century,  and  that  sentence  has  never  been 
revoked. 

The  church  of  England  is  declared  to  be  a  true  church,  be- 
cause it  has  preserved  the  succession,  and  because,  although 
excommunicated  by  the  church  of  Eome,  that  sentence  has  not 
been  ratified  by  the  church  universal.  All  other  ecclesiastical 
societies  in  Grreat  Britain  and  Ireland,  whether  Romanist  or 
Protestant,  are  pronounced  to  be  cut  off  from  the  church  and 
out  of  the  way  of  salvation.  This  position  is  openly  avowed, 
and  is  the  necessary  consequence  of  the  theory.  As  to  the  Roman- 
ists in  those  countries,  though  they  have  the  succession,  yet 
they  voluntarily  separate  themselves  from  the  church  of  Eng- 
land, which  as  that  is  a  true  church,  is  to  separate  them- 
selves from  the  church  of  Christ,  a  sin  which  is  declared  to  be 
of  the  same  turpitude  as  adultery  and  murder,  and  as  certainly 
excludes  from  heaven.  As  to  all  other  Protestant  bodies,  the 
case  is  still  plainer.  They  have  not  only  separated  from  the 
church,  but  lost  the  succession,  and  are  therefore  out  of  the  reach 
of  the  benefits  of  redemption,  which  flow  only  in  the  line  of  that 
succession. 

The  church  of  Scotland  is  declared  to  be  in  the  same  deplorable 
condition.  Though  under  the  Stuarts  episcopacy  was  established 
in  that  country,  yet  it  was  strenuously  resisted  by  the  people  ; 
and  under  William  III.  it  was,  by  a  joint  act  of  the  Assembly 
and  Parliament  formally  rejected  ;  they  thereby  separated  them- 
selves from  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  "  and  all  the  temporal 
enactments  and  powers  of  the  whole  world  could  not  cure  this 


216  THEORIES    OF     THE     CHURCH. 

fault,  nor  render  them  a  portion  of  the  church  of  Christ."  Palm- 
er, Vol.  I.,  p.  529.  The  same  judgment  is  pronounced  on  all 
the  churches  in  this  country  cxcej^t  the  church  of  England.  The 
Eomanists  here  are  excluded,  because  they  are  derived  from  the 
schismatic  Papists  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  or  have  intruded 
into  sees  where  bishops  deriving  authority  from  the  Anglican 
church  already  presided.  How  this  can  be  historically  made  out 
as  regards  Maryland,  and  Louisiana,  it  is  not  for  us  to  say.  The 
theory  forbids  the  existence  of  two  separate  churches  in  the  same 
place.  If  the  church  of  England  in  Maryland  is  a  true  church, 
the  church  of  Rome  is  not.  Bishop  Whittingham,  therefore, 
with  perfect  consistency,  always  speaks  of  the  Eomanists  in  the 
United  States  as  schismatics,  and  schismatics  of  course  are  out 
of  the  church.  As  to  non-episcopal  communions  in  this  country, 
they  are  not  only  declared  to  be  in  a  state  of  schism,  but  to  be 
destitute  of  the  essential  elements  of  the  church.  They  are  all, 
therefore,  of  necessity  excluded  from  the  pale  of  the  church. 
The  advocates  of  this  theory,  when  pressed  with  the  obvious  ob- 
jection that  multitudes  thus  excluded  from  the  church,  and  con- 
sequently from  salvation,  give  every  evidence  of  piety,  meet  the 
objection  by  quoting  Augustine,  '  Let  us  hold  it  as  a  thing  un- 
shaken and  firm,  that  no  good  men  ca7i  divide  themselves  from 
the  church.'  "  It  is  not  indeed  to  be  supposed  or  believed  for  a 
moment,"  adds  Mr.  Palmer,  "  that  divine  grace  would  permit 
the  really  holy  and  justified  members  of  Christ  to  fall  from  the 
way  of  life.  He  would  only  permit  the  unsanctified,  the  enemies 
of  Christ  to  sever  themselves  from  that  fountain,  where  his 
Spirit  is  freely  given."  Voluntary  sej)aration  therefore  from  the 
church,  he  concludes,  is  "  a  sin  which,  unless  repented  of,  is 
eternally  destructive  of  the  soul.  The  heinous  nature  of  this 
offence  is  incapable  of  exaggeration,  because  no  liuman  imagina- 
tion, and  no  human  tongue  can  adequately  describe  its  enormity." 
Vol.  I.,  p.  68.  The  only  church  in  Great  Britain,  according  to 
Mr.  Palmer,  be  it  remembered,  is  the  church  of  England,  and 
the  only  church  in  this  country  according  to  the  same  theory  and 
its  advocates,  is  the  Episcopal  church.  Thus  the  knot  is  fairly 
cut.  It  is  apparently  a  formidable  difficulty,  that  there  should 
be  more  piety  out  of  the  church,  than  in  it.  But  the  difficulty 
vanishes  at  once,  when  we  know  that  "  no  good  man  can  divide 
himself  from  the  church." 


THEORIES    OF    THE    CHURCH.  217 

If  this  theory  were  new,  if  it  were  now  presented  for  the  first 
time,  it  would  be  rejected  with  indignation  and  derision  ;  indig- 
nation at  its  monstrous  and  unscriptural  claims,  and  derision  at 
the  weakness  of  the  arguments  by  which  it  is  supported.  But 
age  renders  even  imbecility  venerable.  It  must  also  be  conceded 
that  a  theory  which  has  for  centuries  prevailed  in  the  church, 
must  have  something  to  recommend  it.  It  is  not  difficult  to 
discover  in  the  present  case,  what  that  something  is.  The  Ritual 
theory  of  the  church  is  perfectly  simple  and  consistent.  It  has 
the  first  and  most  important  element  of  success  in  being  intelli- 
gible. That  Christ  should  found  a  church,  or  external  society, 
giving  to  his  apostles  the  Holy  Spirit  to  render  them  infallible  in 
teaching  and  judging,  and  authorize  them  to  communicate  the 
like  gift  to  their  successors  to  the  end  of  time  ;  and  make  it  a 
condition  of  salvation  that  all  should  recognize  their  spiritual 
authority,  receive  their  doctrines  and  submit  to  their  decisions, 
declaring  that  what  they  bound  on  earth  should  be  bound  in 
heaven,  and  what  they  loosed  on  earth  should  be  loosed  in 
heaven,  is  precisely  the  plan  which  the  wise  men  of  this  world 
have  devised.  It  is  in  fact  that  which  they  have  constructed. 
We  must  not  forget,  however,  that  the  wisdom  of  men  is  foolish- 
ness with  God. 

Again,  this  theory  admits  of  being  propounded  in  the  forms  of 
truth.  All  its  fundamental  principles  may  be  stated  in  a  form 
to  command  universal  assent.  It  is  true  that  the  church  is  one, 
that  it  is  catholic  and  apostolical ;  that  it  has  the  power  of 
authoritative  teaching  and  judging,  that  out  of  its  pale  there  is 
no  salvation.  But  this  system  perverts  all  these  principles.  It 
places  the  bond  of  unity  in  the  wrong  place.  Instead  of  saying 
with  Jerome,  Ecclesia  ibi  est,  ubi  vera  fides  est,  or  with  Irenseus, 
ubi  Spiritus  Dei,  illic  ecclesia,  they  assume  that  the  church  is 
nowhere,  where  prelates  are  not.  The  true  apostolicity  of  the 
church,  does  not  consist  in  an  external  descent  to  be  historically 
traced  from  the  early  churches,  but  in  sameness  of  faith  and 
Spirit  with  the  apostles.  Separation  from  the  church  is  indeed  a 
great  sin  ;  but  there  is  no  separation  from  the  church  involved  in 
withdrawing  from  an  external  body  whose  terms  of  communion 
hurt  the  enlightened  conscience  ;  provided  this  be  done  without 
excommunicating  or  denouncing  those  who  are  really  the  people 
of  God. 


218  THEOEIES    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

The  great  advantage  of  this  tlieoiy,  however,  is  to  be  found  in 
its  adaptation  to  the  human  heart.  Most  men  who  live  where 
the  gospel  is  known,  desire  some  better  foundation  for  confidence 
towards  God,  than  their  own  works.  To.  such  men  the  church, 
according  to  this  theory,  presents  itself  as  an  Institute  of  Salva- 
tion ;  venerable  for  its  anticj^uity,  attractive  from  the  number  and 
rank  of  its  disciples,  and  from  the  easy  terms  on  which  it  proffers 
pardon  and  eternal  life.  There  are  three  very  comprehensive 
classes  of  men  to  whom  this  system  must  commend  itself.  The 
first  consists  of  those  who  are  at  once  ignorant  and  wicked.  The 
degraded  inhabitants  of  Italy  and  Portugal  have  no  doubt  of 
their  salvation,  no  matter  how  wicked  they  may  be,  so  long  as 
they  are  in  the  church  and  submissive  to  officers  and  rites.  The 
second  includes  those  who  are  devout  and  at  the  same  time 
ignorant  of  the  Scriptures.  Such  men  feel  the  need  of  religion, 
of  communion  with  God,  and  of  preparation  for  heaven.  But 
knowing  nothing  of  the  gospel,  or  disUking  what  they  know,  a 
form  of  religion  which  is  laborious,  mystical,  and  ritual,  meets  all 
their  necessities,  and  commands  their  homage.  The  third  class 
consists  of  worldly  men,  who  wish  to  enjoy  this  life  and  get  to 
heaven  with  as  little  trouble  as  possible.  Such  men,  the  world 
over,  are  High  Churchmen.  To  them  a  church  which  claims  the 
secure  and  exclusive  custody  of  the  blessings  of  redemption,  and 
which  she  professes  to  grant  on  the  condition  of  unresisting  sub- 
mission to  her  authority  and  rites,  is  exactly  the  church  they 
desire.  We  need  not  wonder,  therefore,  at  the  long-continued 
and  extensive  prevalence  of  this  system.  It  is  too  much  in 
accordance  with  the  human  heart,  to  fail  of  its  support,  or  to  be 
effectually  resisted  by  any  power  short  of  that  by  which  the  heart 
is  changed. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  question  concerning  the  nature  and  pre- 
rogatives of  the  church,  is  not  one  which  relates  to  the  externals 
of  religion.  It  concerns  the  very  nature  of  Christianity  and  the 
conditions  of  salvation.  If  the  soul  convinced  of  sin  and  desirous 
of  reconciliation  with  God,  is  allowed  to  hear  the  Saviour's  voice, 
aad  permitted  to  go  to  him  by  faith  for  pardon  and  for  the  gift  of 
the  Spirit,  tlien  the  way  of  hfe  is  unobstructed.  But  if  a  human 
priest  must  intervene,  and  bar  our  access  to  Christ,  assuming  the 
exclusive  power  to  dispense  the  blessings  Christ  has  purchased, 
and  to  grant  or  withhold  them  at  discretion,  then  the  whole  plaD 


THEORIES    OF    THE    CHURCH.  219 

of  salvation  is  e£fectually  changed.  No  sprinkling  priest,  nc 
sacrificial  or  sacramental  rite  can  be  substituted  for  the  im- 
mediate access  of  the  soul  to  Christ,  without  imminent  peril  of 
salvation. 

It  is  not,  however,  merely  the  first  approach  to  God,  or  the 
commencement  of  a  religious  life,  that  is  perverted  by  the  ritual 
system  ;  all  the  inward  and  permanent  exercises  of  religion  must 
be  modified  and  injured  by  it.  It  produces  a  different  kind  of 
religion  from  that  which  we  find  portrayed  in  the  Bible,  and  ex- 
emplified in  the  lives  of  the  apostles  and  early  Christians.  There 
everything  is  spiritual.  God  and  Christ  are  the  immediate 
objects  of  reverence  and  love  ;  communion  with  the  Father  of 
Spirits  through  Jesus  Christ  his  Son,  and  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  is 
the  life  which  is  there  exhibited.  In  the  ritual  system,  rites, 
ceremonies,  altars,  buildings,  priests,  saints,  the  blessed  virgin, 
intervene  and  divide  or  absorb  the  reverence  and  homage  due  to 
God  alone.  If  external  rites  and  creature  agents  are  made 
necessary  to  our  access  to  God,  then  those  rites  and  agents  will 
more  or  less  take  the  place  of  God,  and  men  will  come  to  worship 
the  creature  rather  than  the  creator.  This  tendency  constantly 
gathers  strength,  nntil  actual  idolatry  is  the  consequence,  or 
until  all  religion,  is  made  to  consist  in  the  performance  of 
external  services.  Hence  this  system  is  not  only  destructive  of 
true  religion,  but  leads  to  security  in  the  indulgence  of  sin  and 
commission  of  crimes.  Though  it  includes  among  its  advocates 
many  devout  and  exemplary  men,  its  legitimate  fruits  are  reck- 
lessness and  profligacy,  combined  with  superstition  and  bigotry. 
It  is  impossible,  also,  under  this  system,  to  avoid  transferring  the 
subjection  of  the  understanding  and  conscience  due  to  God  and 
his  word,  to  the  church  and  the  priesthood.  The  judgments  of 
the  church,  considered  as  an  external  visible  society,  are  pro- 
nounced even  by  the  Protestant  advocates  of  this  theory,  to  be 
unerring  and  irrefragable,  to  which  every  believer  must  bow  on 
pain  of  perdition.  See  Palmer,  Vol.  ii.,  p.  46.  The  bishops  are 
declared  to  stand  in  Christ's  place  ;  to  be  clothed  with  all  the 
authority  which  he  as  man  possessed ;  to  be  invested  with  the 
power  to  communicate  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  forgive  sins,  to  make 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  to  offer  sacriiices  available  for 
the  living  and  the  dead.  Such  a  system  must  exalt  the  priest- 
hood into  the  place  of  God. 


220  THEORIES    OF    THE    CHURCH. 

A  theory,  however,  which  has  so  long  prevailed,  need  not  be 
judged  by  its  apparent  tendencies.  Let  it  be  judged  by  its 
fruits.  It  has  always  and  everywhere,  just  in  proportion  to 
its  prevalence,  produced  the  effects  above  referred  to.  It  has 
changed  the  plan  of  salvation  ;  it  has  rendered  obsolete  the 
answer  given  by  Paul  to  the  question,  What  must  I  do  to  be 
saved  .^  It  has  perverted  religion.  It  has  introduced  idolatry. 
It  has  rendered  men  secure  in  the  habitual  commission  of  crime. 
It  has  subjected  the  faith,  the  conscience,  and  the  conduct  of  the 
people  to  the  dictation  of  the  priesthood.  It  has  exalted  the 
hierarchy,  saints,  angels,  and  the  Virgin  Mary,  into  the  place  of 
God,  so  as  to  give  a  polytheistic  character  to  the  religion  of  a 
large  part  of  Christendom.  Such  are  the  actual  fruits  of  that . 
system  which  has  of  late  renewed  its  strength,  and  which  every- 
where asserts  its  claims  to  be  received  as  genuine  Christianity. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  dwell  on  that  theory  of  the  church 
which  is  connected  with  Kationalism.  Its  characteristic  feature 
is,  that  the  church  is  not  a  divine  institution,  with  prerogatives 
and  attributes  authoritatively  determined  by  its  author,  but 
rather  a  form  of  Christian  society,  to  be  controlled  according  to 
the  wisdom  of  its  members.  It  may  be  identified  with  the  state, 
or  made  dependent  on  it ;  or  erected  into  a  co-ordinate  body 
with  its  peculiar  officers  and  ends.  It  is  obvious  that  a  system 
which  sets  aside,  more  or  less  completely,  the  authority  both  of 
Scripture  and  tradition,  must  leave  its  advocates  at  liberty  to 
make  of  the  church  just  what  "  the  exigency  of  the  times"  in 
their  judgment  requires.  The  philosophical  or  mystic  school  of 
Rationalists,  have  of  course  a  mystical  doctrine  of  the  church, 
which  can  be  understood  only  by  those  who  understand  the 
philosophy  on  which  it  rests.  With  these  views  we  have  in  this 
country  little  concern,  nor  do  we  believe  they  are  destined  to  ex- 
cite any  general  interest,  or  to  exert  any  permanent  influence. 
The  two  theories  of  the  church  which  are  now  in  obvious  conflict, 
are  the  Evangelical  and  Ritual.  The  controversy  between  Pro- 
testants and  Romanists,  has,  in  appearance,  shifted  its  ground 
from  matters  of  doctrine  to  the  question  concerning  the  church. 
This  is,  however,  only  a  change  in  form.  The  essential  question 
remains  the  same.  It  is  still  a  contention  about  the  very  nature 
of  religion,  and  the  method  of  salvation. 


VII. 


IS  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME  A  PART  OF 
THE  VISIBLE  CHURCH  ?i 

It  is  very  plain  that  our  remarks,  in  our  number  of  July  last, 
in  favor  of  the  validity  of  Romish  baptism,  have  not  met  the  ap- 
probation of  a  large  portion  of  our  brethren.  This,  though  a 
matter  of  regret,  is  not  a  matter  of  surprise.  The  large  majority 
of  the  last  Assembly  by  which  the  resolution  pronouncing  such 
baptism  null  and  void  was  carried,  as  well  as  other  indications 
of  the  public  mind  in  the  church,  made  it  plain  from  the  begin- 
ning that  we  should  be  for  the  present,  at  least,  and  probably  for 
some  years,  in  a  small  minority  on  tliis  question.  Our  confidence, 
however,  in  the  correctness  of  our  position,  has  not  been  shaken. 
That  confidence  rests  partly  on  the  conviction  we  cannot  help 
feeling  of  the  soundness  of  the  arguments  on  which  our  conclu- 
sion rests  ;  and  partly  on  the  fact  that  those  arguments  have 
satisfied  the  minds  of  the  vast  majority  of  the  people  of  God 
from  the  Reformation  to  the  present  time.  We  have,  however, 
waited,  with  minds  we  hope  open  to  conviction,  to  hear  what  was 
to  be  said  on  the  opposite  side.  The  religious  papers  early 
announced  that  full  replies  to  our  arguments  would  speedily 
appear.  Providential  circumstances,  it  seems,  have  prevented, 
until  recently,  the  accomplishment  of  their  purpose  thus  early  an- 
nounced. All  that  we  have  seen  in  the  shape  of  argument  on  the 
subject,  are  two  numbers  of  a  series  of  articles  now  in  the  course 
of  publication  in  the  Watchman  and  Observer,  of  Richmond,  and 
the  essays  of  Theophilus,  in  the  Presbyterian.  Our  respect  for 
the  writer  in  the  Watchman,  and  for  the  thoroughness  and  abil- 
ity which  distinguish  his  opening  numbers,  imposes  on  us  the 

'  Essays  in  the  Presbyterian  by  Theophilus  on  tJie  question :  Is  Baptism  ik  the 
Church  of  Rome  valid?    Nos.  XI.  XII.— Princeton  Review,  April,  1846. 


222  IS    THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME 

duty  of  silence  as  to  the  main  point  in  dispute,  until  the  series 
of  articles  is  completed.  It  will  then  be  time  enough  to  decide 
whether  the  discussion  can  with  profit  be  further  continued  in 
our  pages.  We  are  also  as  yet  without  any  light  from  Theophi- 
lus.  After  writing  ten  weeks  he  is  but  approaching  the  subject. 
He  closes  his  tenth  number  with  saying  :  "  We  are  now  pre- 
pared to  begin  the  argument."  All  that  precedes,  therefore,  is 
not  properly,  in  his  judgment,  of  the  nature  of  argument ;  though 
doubtless  regarded  as  pertinent  to  the  discussion.  Under  these 
circumstances  it  is  obvious  that  the  way  is  not  open  for  us  to  at- 
tempt to  justify  our  position.  We  gave  the  definition  of  Bap- 
tism contained  in  our  standards — and  then  endeavored  to  show 
that  Eomish  baptism  falls  within  that  definition.  Neither  of 
these  points  has,  as  yet,  been  seriously  assailed.  This  is  what  the 
writer  in  the  Watchman  and  Observer  proposes  to  do,  and  we 
respectfully  wait  to  hear  what  he  has  to  say.  In  the  meantime 
the  topic  discussed  by  Theophilus  in  his  eleventh  and  twelfth 
numbers,  is  so  imjiortant  in  itself  and  so  intimately  connected 
with  this  whole  subject,  that  we  have  determined  to  devote  a  few 
pages  to  the  consideration  of  the  question,  Whether  the  church 
of  Rome  is  still  a  portion  of  the  visible  church  of  Christ  ? 

Those  taking  the  negative  of  this  question,  have  every  advan- 
tage of  an  adventitious  kind  in  their  favor.  They  have  no  need 
of  definitions,  or  distinctions,  or  of  afiirming  in  one  sense  and  de- 
nying in  another.  The  round,  plump,  intelligible  no,  answers 
all  their  purposes.  They  make  no  demand  upon  the  discrimina- 
tion, or  the  candor  of  the  public.  They  deal  in  what  is  called 
plain  common  sense,  repudiating  all  metaphysical  niceties.  They 
have  in  this  respect  the  same  advantages  that  the  ultra  temper- 
ance man  and  the  abolitionist  possess.  The  former  disembarasses 
himself  of  all  need  of  distinctions  and  qualifications  by  affirming 
that  the  use  of  intoxicating  liquors  as  a  beverage  is  sinful  ;  not 
sometimes  right  and  sometimes  wrong,  according  to  circum- 
stances, which  implies  the  necessity  of  determining  what  those 
circumstances  are  which  give  character  to  the  act.  He  takes  the 
common  sense  view  of  the  case  ;  and  asserts  that  a  practice  which 
produces  all  the  drunkenness  that  is  in  the  world,  and  all  the  vice 
and  misery  which  flow  from  drunkenness,  is  a  sinful  practice.  He 
therefore  hoots  at  those  who  beg  him  to  discriminate  between 
what  is  wrong  in  itself  and  universally,  and  what  is  wrong  only 


A     PART     OF    THE    VISIBLE     CHUECH?  223 

in  certain  circumstances  ;  and  cries  them  down  as  the  friends  of 
publicans  and  sinners.  The  abolitionist  is  still  more  summary. 
Slavery  is  a  heinous  crime ;  it  degrades  human  beings  into 
things  ;  it  forbids  marriages  ;  it  destroys  the  domestic  relations  ; 
it  separates  parents  and  children,  husbands  and  wives  ;  it  legal- 
izes what  Grod  forbids,  and  forbids  what  God  enjoins  ;  it  keeps 
its  victims  in  ignorance  even  of  the  gospel ;  it  denies  to  labor  its 
wages,  sul)jects  the  persons,  the  virtue,  and  the  happiness  of 
many  to  the  caprice  of  one  ;  it  involves  the  violation  of  all  social 
rights  and  duties,  and  therefore  is  the  greatest  of  social  crimes. 
It  is  as  much  as  any  man's  character  for  sense,  honesty  or  religion 
is  worth,  to  insist  that  a  distinction  must  here  be  made  ;  that  we 
must  discriminate  between  slavery  and  its  separable  adjuncts  ; 
between  the  relation  itself  and  the  abuse  of  it ;  between  the 
possession  of  power  and  the  unjust  exercise  of  it.  Let  any  man 
in  some  portions  of  our  country,  in  England,  in  Scotland,  or  Ire- 
land, attempt  to  make  such  distinctions,  and  see  with  what  an 
outburst  of  indignation  he  will  be  overwhelmed.  It  is  just  so  in 
the  present  case.  Kome  is  antichrist,  the  mystical  Babylon,  the 
scarlet  woman,  the  mother  of  harlots,  drunk  with  the  blood  of 
the  saints.  What  room,  asks  Theophilus,  is  there  for  argument 
here  ?  Is  Babylon  Zion  .^  Is  the  synagogue  of  Satan  the  church 
of  Christ,  the  scarlet  woman  the  bride  of  the  Lamb  .^  Woe  to 
the  man  who  ventures  to  ask  for  definitions,  and  discrimination  ; 
or  to  suggest  that  possibly  these  antagonistic  designations  are 
not  ajiplied  to  the  same  subject,  or  to  the  same  subject  under 
the  same  aspect  ;  that  as  of  old  the  prophets  denounced  the 
Hebrew  community  under  the  figure  of  an  adulterous  woman, 
and  almost  in  the  same  breath  addresses  them  as  the  beloved 
of  God,  his  chosen  people,  compared  to  the  wife  of  one's  youth  ; 
so  it  may  be  here.  The  case  is  pronounced  too  plain  for  argu- 
ment ;  the  appeal  is  made  at  once  to  the  feelings  of  the  reader, 
and  those  who  do  not  join  in  the  cry  are  represented  as  advocates 
of  popery,  or  at  best  veiy  doubtful  Protestants. 

We  do  not  mean  to  complain  of  anything  of  this  kind  we 
may  have  ourselves  experienced.  We  gratefully  acknowledge  the 
general  courtesy  of  Theophilus  and  the  Christian  spirit  and 
gentlemanly  bearing  of  the  writer  in  the  Watchman.  Our  object 
in  these  remarks  is  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  is  very 
great  danger  of  our  being  carried  away  by  the  mere  sound  and 


224  IS    THE     CHURCH    OF     ROME 

appearance  of  argument  in  all  such  cases,  and  that  while  an  easy 
triumph  may  be  gained  for  the  moment  by  taking  things  in  the 
gross,  and  refusing  the  trouble  of  determining  accurately  the 
meaning  of  the  terms  we  use,  yet  that  the  evils  which  flow  from 
this  course  are  often  serious  and  lasting.  We  have  seen  churches 
rent  asunder  by  the  anti-slavery  agitation,  when  it  is  probable, 
if  the  different  parties  had  calmly  sat  down  to  compare  their 
views  and  define  their  terms,  it  would  have  been  found  they  were 
substantially  of  the  same  mind. 

It  is  neither  by  research  nor  argument  the  question  whether 
Komanists  are  members  of  the  visible  church  is  to  be  answered. 
It  is  a  simple  matter  of  definition  and  statement.  All  that  can 
be  done  is  first  to  determine  what  is  meant  by  the  word  church  ; 
and  secondly  what  is  meant  by  Eome,  church  of  Rome,  Roman- 
ists, or  whatever  term  is  used,  and  then  see  whether  the  two 
ao-ree,  whether  Rome  falls  within  or  without  the  definition  of  the 
church. 

By  a  definition  we  do  not  mean  a  description  including  a 
specification  of  all  the  attributes  which  properly  pertain  to  the 
thing  defined  ;  but  an  enumeration  of  its  essential  attributes 
and  of  none  other.  We  may  say  that  a  Christian  is  a  man  who 
believes  all  that  Christ  taught,  Avho  obeys  all  that  he  commanded, 
and  trusts  all  his  promises.  This,  however,  is  a  description  of 
an  ideal  or  perfect  Christian.  It  is  not  a  definition  which  is  to 
guide  our  judgment,  whether  a  particular  individual  is  to  be  re- 
garded and  treated  as  a  Christian.  We  may  say  that  a  church 
is  a  society  in  which  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached,  the  sacra- 
ments duly  administered,  and  discipline  properly  exercised  by 
legitimate  officers.  This,  however,  is  a  description  of  a  pure  and 
orderly  church,  and  not  an  enumeration  of  the  essential  attributes 
of  such  a  body.  If  we  use  that  description  as  a  definition,  we 
must  exclude  all  but  orthodox  Presbyterians  from  the  pale  of 
the  church.  The  eastern  churches,  the  church  of  England,  the 
Methodists,  Baptists,  Congregationalists  would  without  exception 
be  cut  ofi".  Every  one  of  these  classes  of  Christians  fails,  accord- 
ing to  our  standard,  in  some  one  or  more  of  the  above  specifica- 
tions. They  are  all  defective  either  as  to  doctrine,  or  as  to  the 
sacraments,  or  as  to  the  proper  exercise  of  discipline,  or  as  to  the 
organs  through  which  such  discipline  is  exercised.  This  distinc- 
tion between  a  description  and  definition,  between  an  enuraera- 


A    PAKT     OF    THE     VISIBLE     CHURCH?  225 

tion  of  what  belongs  to  a  pure  church,  and  what  is  necessary  to 
the  being  of  a  church,  is  often  disregarded.  AVe  think  Theophi- 
lus  overlooks  it.  He  quotes  largely  from  Turrettin  as  sustaining 
liis  views  on  this  subject  ;  whereas  Turrettin  is  on  precisely  the 
opposite  ground  ;  affirming  what  Theophilus  denies,  and  deny- 
ing what  Theophilus  affirms.  Turrettin  expressly  makes  the 
distinction  between  "a  true  church,"  {.  e.,  a  church  which  con- 
forms to  the  true  standard  of  what  a  cliurch  ought  to  be,  and  a 
heretical,  corrupt,  and  apostate  church.  True,  in  his  use  of  the 
term,  corresponds  with  orthodox  or  pure  ;  not  with  real.  A 
body,  therefore,  according  to  him  may  be  a  church,  and  yet  not 
a  true  church.  We  adverted  to  this  fact  in  our  former  article, 
and  referred  so  distinctly  to  the  statement  of  Turrettin  that  we 
are  surprised  to  find  Theophilus  quoting  him  as  he  does.  "  Since 
the  church  of  Kome,"  says  Turrettin,  "  may  be  viewed  under  a 
twofold  aspect,  either  in  reference  to  the  profession  of  Christian- 
ity and  of  the  evangelical  truths  which  she  retains,  or  in  refer- 
ence to  her  subjection  to  the  pope,  and  to  her  corruptions  both 
in  matters  of  faith  and  morals,  we  can  speak  of  her  in  two  difier- 
ent  ways.  Under  one  aspect,  we  do  not  deny  she  retains  some 
truth  ;  under  the  other  we  deny  that  she  is  Christian  and  apos- 
tolical, and  affirm  her  to  be  anti-christian  and  apostate.  In  one 
sense,  we  admit  she  may  be  still  called  a  Christian  church. 
1st.  In  reference  to  the  people  of  God,  or  the  elect,  who  are 
called  to  come  out  of  her  even  at  the  time  of  her  destruction, 
Kev.  xviii.  4.  2d.  In  reference  to  external  form,  or  certain  ele- 
ments of  a  dispersed  church,  the  vestiges  of  which  are  still  con- 
spicuous, as  well  as  regards  the  word  of  God  and  the  preaching 
thereof,  which  she  still  retains,  although  corrupted,  as  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  sacraments,  especially  baptism,  which  as  to 
its  substance  is  there  retained  in  its  integrity.  3d.  In  reference 
to  the  evangelical  truths,  as  concerning  the  Trinity,  Christ  the 
mediator,  God  and  man,  by  which  she  is  distinguished  from  a 
congregation  of  pagans  or  infidels.  But  we  deny  that  she  can 
properly  and  simply  (i.  e.,  without  qualification)  be  called  a  true 
church,  much  less  the  only  and  the  catholic  church,  as  they  would 
wish  to  have  her  called." 

In  the  next  paragraph  but  one,  he  explains  what  he  means 
by  verity  as  affirmed  of  a  church,  when  we  say  she  is  vera  ecclesia. 
It  includes  "  verity  in  faith,"  or  freedom  from  heresy  ;  purity,  or 

15 


226  IS    THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME 

freedom  from  all  superstition  and  idolatry  ;  liberty  in  govern- 
ment, freedom  from  servitude  and  tjTanny  ;  sanctity  of  morals, 
as  opposed  to  corruption  of  manners  ;  and  certainty  and  consola- 
tion, or  freedom  from  doubt  or  diffidence. 

Again,  in  answer  to  the  objection  that  if  Romanists  have  true 
baptism  they  must  be  a  true  church,  he  says  :  "  True  baptism 
does  indeed  suppose  a  true  church,  as  far  as  Christianity  in  the 
general  is  concerned,  as  opposed  to  a  congregation  of  infidels  ; 
but  not  as  it  relates  to  pure  Christianity,  free  from  heretical 
errors  ;  since  true  baptism  may  be  found  among  heretics,  who 
are  not  a  true  church." — P.  151. 

It  is  very  evident,  therefore,  that  Rome,  according  to  Turret- 
tin,  is  to  be  viewed  under  two  aspects  ;  under  the  one  f-he  is  a 
church,  i.  e.,  a  body  in  which  the  people  of  Grod  still  are ;  which 
retains  the  word  of  God  and  the  preaching  of  it,  though  cor- 
rupted, and  the  sacraments,  especially  baptism.  Under  the 
other  aspect,  i.  e.,  as  a  papal  body,  she  is  not  a  church ;  i.  e.,  her 
popery  and  all  her  corruptions  are  anti-christian  and  apostate. 
She  is  not  therefore  a  true  church,  for  a  true  church  is  free  from 
heresy,  from  superstition,  from  oppressive  regimen,  from  corrup- 
tion of  manners,  and  from  doubt  or  diffidence.  Whether  Theophi- 
lus  approves  of  these  distinctions  or  not ;  whether  he  thinks 
that  the  English  word  true  can  be  used  in  the  latitude  which 
Turrettin  gives  the  Latin  word  verus,  or  not ;  still  he  ought  to 
give  the  Geneva  professor  the  benefit  of  his  own  statements  and 
definitions ;  and  not  represent  him  as  denying  that  the  church  of 
Rome  is  a  church,  when  he  denies  that  she  is  a  true,  i.  e.,  a  pure 
church.  Turrettin  says  Romish  baptism  is  valid.  Theophilus 
says  it  is  not.  Both  however  agree  that  if  Rome  is  in  no  sense  a 
church,  her  baptism  is  in  no  case  valid.  It  is  obvious,  therefore, 
that  Turrettin  admits  her  to  be  a  church  in  the  sense  in  which 
Theophilus  denies  it. 

Professor  Thornwell  very  correctly  remarked,  in  his  effective 
speech  before  the  General  Assembly,  that  it  is  very  plain  that 
though  the  Reformers  denied  Rome  to  bo  the  true  church,  they 
admitted  her  to  be  in  some  sense  a  church.  The  fact  is,  they 
used  the  word  true  as  Turrettin  does,  as  implying  conformity 
with  the  true  model  or  standard.  They  made  a  distinction 
between  a  description  of  a  church  including  all  the  excellencies 
such  a  body  ought  to  possess  ;  and  a  definition  including  nothjng 


A    PART     OF     THE     VISIBLE    CHURCH?  227 

but  what  is  essential  to  the  being  of  a  church.  It  is  to  the  dan- 
ger of  confounding  these  two  things,  that  the  foregoing  remarks 
are  directed. 

Tlie  real  difficulty  in  the  case,  is  .that  it  is  impossible  to  give 
any  one  definition  of  a  church,  except  in  the  most  general  terms, 
which  includes  all  the  established  uses  of  the  word.  Among 
Congregationalists  a  church  is  a  number  of  persons  giving  credi- 
ble evidence  of  regeneration,  united  by  a  covenant  for  the  pur- 
poses of  Christian  worship  and  mutual  watch  and  care.  It  is  not 
to  be  denied  that  such  a  body  is  a  church  ;  it  falls  within  the 
legitimate  sense  and  wider  definition  of  the  term.  This  narrow 
sense  has  gradually  diffused  itself  through  our  common  modes  of 
speech.  We  talk  of  a  man's  being  admitted  to  the  church,  or 
excluded  from  it,  meaning  by  the  church  the  body  of  communi- 
cants, to  the  exclusion  of  the  great  body  of  the  baptized.  To 
those  accustomed  to  this  use  of  the  term,  no  body  larger  than  a 
single  congregation  can  be  a  church,  and  none  composed  in  great 
part  of  those  who  give  no  evidence  and  make  no  profession  of 
regeneration.  Men  possessed  with  this  idea  of  the  church,  and 
unable  to  get  a  wider  conception  of  it,  ask  with  confidence.  Can 
a  corrupt,  wicked,  persecuting  body  be  a  church  ?  Are  its 
members  the  called  of  God,  believers,  saints,  the  temples  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  members  of  Christ  .^  Of  course  not.  No  such 
body  falls  within  their  definition  of  the  church  ;  and  if  they  can 
prove  that  that  definition  is  the  only  projjer  one,  there  can  be  no 
further  dispute  about  the  matter.  But  the  iisus  loquendi  neither 
of  the  Bible  nor  of  the  English  language  is  determined  by  Con- 
gregationalists. It  is  an  undeniable  fact  that  we  speak  and 
speak  correctly  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  church  ;  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  and  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  without  intending  to 
affirm  that  the  several  bodies  thus  designated  are  composed  of 
persons  giving  credible  evidence  of  regeneration,  and  united  by 
covenant  for  worship  and  discipline.  It  will  not  do  therefore  to 
conclude  that  the  church  of  England  or  that  of  Scotland  is  no 
church,  because  it  does  not  fall  within  the  New  England  defini- 
tion of  a  church. 

When  we  turn  to  the  Scriptures  and  to  the  common  language 
of  Christians,  we  do  not  find  the  word  church  used  in  senses 
which  admit  of  being  embraced  under  one  definition.  In  other 
words,  the  essential  attributes  of  the  church,  in  one  established 


228  IS    THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME 

sense  of  the  term,  are  not  its  essential  attributes  in  another 
equally  authorized  sense.  Thus  we  are  told  that  the  church  con- 
sists of  the  whole  number  of  the  elect  who  ever  have  been,  are,  or 
shall  be  gathered  into  one,  under  Christ  the  head  thereof  In 
this  sense  of  the  word,  it  is  essential  to  the  church  that  it  consist 
of  the  elect  only,  and  that  it  should  include  them  all.  That  this 
definition  is  sustained  by  scriptural  usage  cannot  be  disputed.  It 
is  in  this  sense  the  church  is  the  body  of  Christ,  the  fulness  of 
him  that  filleth  alt  in  all.  It  is  by  the  church,  thus  understood, 
God  is  to  manifest  to  principalities  and  powers  his  manifold  wis- 
dom. This  is  the  church  which  Christ  loved,  and  for  which  he 
gave  himself  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the 
washing  of  water  by  the  word,  that  he  might  present  it  to  him- 
self a  glorious  church.  It  would  of  course  be  absurd  to  contend 
that  no  society  is  a  church  which  does  not  come  under  that 
definition. 

Again  the  word  is  often  used  as  equivalent  with  saints,  believ- 
ers, the  true  people  of  God,  existing  at  any  one  time  on  earth,  or 
in  any  one  place.  The  word  is  used  in  this  sense  when  Paul 
exhorts  us  to  give  no  offence  to  the  church,  i.  e.,  the  people  of 
God  ;  and  when  he  says  he  persecuted  the  church.  In  like 
manner,  when  we  pray  for  the  church,  either  in  the  whole  world, 
or  in  a  particular  country,  or  city,  we  surely  do  not  mean  the 
Presbyterian,  or  Episcopal,  or  Methodist  church,  or  any  one 
organized  body.  We  have  in  our  mind  the  true  people  of  God, 
scattered  abroad  it  may  be,  existing  in  every  Christian  denomina- 
tion. In  this  sense  of  the  word  it  is  essential  to  the  church  that 
it  consist  of  true  believers. 

A  third  sense  of  the  word  is  that  in  which  it  is  used  when  we 
say  the  church  consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world  who 
profess  the  true  religion,  together  with  their  children.  This  is  a 
legitimate  established  meaning  of  the  term.  In  this  view  of  the 
church,  nothing  is  essential  to  it  but  the  profession  of  the  tnie 
religion  ;  and  in  this  sense  every  individual  making  that  profes- 
sion is  a  member,  and  every  society  composed  of  such  individuals 
is  a  portion  of  the  church,  or  is  included  in  it. 

Theophilus  expresses  great  surprise  that  we  should  venture  the 
assertion  that  organization  is  not  essential  to  the  church.  He 
ridicules  the  statement,  and  appeals  to  the  language  of  the 
Psalmist  when  he  bids  us  walk  about  Zion  and  tell  the  towers 


A    PAET     OF    THE     VISIBLE     CHUKCH?  229 

thereof,  as  a  sufficient  refutation  of  it.  By  organization  we 
meant,  and  it  is  very  evident  lie  means,  external  ordered  union. 
We  presume  Theophilus  himself  will  not  maintain  that  in  either 
of  the  three  established  senses  of  the  word  above  stated,  organ- 
ization is  among  its  essential  attributes.  It  is  not  enumerated 
in  the  definitions  as  given  from  our  standards  and  from  Scrip- 
ture ;  nor  is  it  necessarily  included  in  the  complex  conception  to 
which  we  give  the  name  church.  When  we  conceive  of  the 
whole  body  of  the  elect,  which  have  been  or  are  to  be  gathered 
into  one  under  Christ,  it  is  not  as  an  external  organized  body 
furnished  with  ministers  and  sacraments,  but  simply  as  the  great 
body  of  the  redeemed  united  to  Christ  and  to  each  other  by  the 
indwelling  of  the  Spirit.  So  too  when  we  speak  of  the  church  as 
consisting  of  true  believers,  we  do  not  conceive  of  them  as  an 
external  organized  body.  We  pray  for  no  such  body  when  we 
pray  for  the  church  of  God  throughout  the  world.  The  word  is 
but  a  collective  term  for  the  saints,  or  children  of  God.  It  is 
equivalent  to  the  true  Israel;  Israel  Kara  Trvevfia  as  distinguished 
from  the  Israel  Kara  adpKa.  In  like  manner,  when  the  word  is 
used  for  all  those  throughout  the  world  who  profess  the  true 
religion  ;  the  idea  of  organization  is  of  necessity  excluded  from 
that  of  the  church.  The  visible  church  catholic  is  not  an  organ- 
ized body  on  any  but  Komish  principles.  We  are  therefore  sur- 
prised that  Theophilus  should  be  tlirown  ofl'  his  balance,  by  a 
remark  so  obviously  true,  and  of  such  constant  recuiTcnce  in  the 
wi'itings  of  Protestants, 

There  is  a  fourth  established  meaning  of  the  word  church, 
which  has  more  direct  reference  to  the  question  before  us.  It 
often  means  an  organized  society  professing  the  true  religion, 
united  for  the  purpose  of  worship  and  discipline,  and  subject  to 
.the  same  form  of  government  and  to  some  common  tribunal.  A 
multitude  of  controversies  turn  upon  the  correctness  of  this  defini- 
tion. It  includes  the  following  particulars.  1.  A  church  is  an 
organized  society.  It  is  thus  distinguished  from  the  casual  or 
temporary  assemblies  of  Christians,  for  the  purpose  of  divine 
worship.  2.  It  must  profess  the  true  religion.  By  the  true 
religion  cannot  be  meant  all  the  doctrines  of  the  true  religion, 
and  nothing  more  or  less.  For  then  no  human  society  would  be 
a  church  unless  perfect  both  in  knowledge  and  faith.  Nor  can 
it  mean  all  the  clearly  revealed  and  important  doctrines  of  the 


230  IS    THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME 

Bible,  For  then  no  man  could  be  a  Christian  and  no  body  of 
men  a  church,  which  reject  ^  or  is  ignorant  of  any  of  those  doc- 
trines. But  it  must  mean  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel, 
those  doctrines  without  the  knowledge  and  possession  of  which, 
no  man  can  be  saved.  This  is  plain,  because  nothing  can  be 
essential,  as  far  as  truth  is  concerned,  to  a  church,  which  is  not 
essential  to  union  with  Christ.  We  are  prohibited  by  our  allegi- 
ance to  the  word  of  God  from  recognizing  as  a  true  Christian, 
any  man  who  rejects  any  doctrine  which  the  Scriptures  declare  to 
be  essential  to  salvation  ;  and  we  are  bound  by  that  allegiance 
not  to  refuse  such  recognition,  on  account  of  ignorance  or  error, 
to  any  man  who  j^rofesses  what  the  Bible  teaches  is  saving  truth. 
It  is  absurd  that  we  should  make  more  truth  essential  to  a  visi- 
ble church,  than  Christ  has  made  essential  to  the  church  invisible 
and  to  salvation.  This  distinction  between  essential  and  unes- 
sential doctrines  Protestants  have  always  insisted  upon,  and 
Romanists  and  Anghcans  as  strenuously  rejected.  It  is,  however, 
so  plainly  recognized  in  Scripture,  and  so  obviously  necessary  in 
practice,  that  those  who  reject  it  in  terms  in  opposition  to  Prot- 
estants, are  forced  to  admit  it  in  reality.  They  make  substan- 
tially the  same  distinction  when  they  distinguish  between 
matters  of  faith  and  matters  of  opinion,  and  between  those 
truths  which  must  be  received  with  explicit  faith  (/.  e.,  known 
as  well  as  believed)  and  those  which  may  be  received  with 
implicit  faith ;  i.  e.,  received  without  knowlege,  as  a  man  who 
believes  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God  may  be  said  to  believe 
all  it  teaches,  though  it  may  contain  many  things  of  which  he  is 
ignorant.  Romanists  say  that  every  doctrine  on  which  the 
church  has  pronounced  judgment  as  part  of  the  revelation  of 
God,  is  a  matter  of  faith,  and  essential  to  the  salvation  of  those 
to  whom  it  is  duly  proposed.  Anglicans  say  the  same  thing  of 
those  doctrines  which  are  sustained  by  tradition.  Here  is  virtu- 
ally the  same  distinction  between  fundamental  and  other  doc- 
trines, which  Protestants  make.  The  only  difference  is  as  to  the 
criterion  by  which  the  one  class  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the 
other.  Romanists  and  Anglicans  say  that  criterion  is  the  judg- 
ment of  the  church;  Protestants  say  it  is  the  word  of  God. 
What  the  Bible  declares  to  be  essential  to  salvation,  is  essential : 
what  it  does  not  make  absolutely  necessary  to  be  beheved  and 
professed,  no  man  can  rightfully  declare  to  be  absolutely  neces- 


A    PAKT    OF    THE    VISIBLE    CHUECH?  231 

sary.  And  what  is  not  essential  to  the  true  church,  the  spiritual 
body  of  Christ,  or  to  salvation,  cannot  be  essential  to  the  visible 
church.  This  is  really  only  saying  that  those  whom  Christ 
declares  to  be  his  people,  we  have  no  right  to  say  are  not  his 
people.  If  any  man  thinks  he  has  such  a  right,  it  would  be  well 
for  him  to  take  heed  how  he  exercises  it.  By  the  true  religion, 
therefore,  which  a  society  must  profess  in  order  to  its  being- 
recognized  as  a  church,  must  be  meant  those  doctrines  which  are 
essential  to  salvation. 

3.  Such  society  must  not  only  profess  the  true  religion,  but  its 
object  must  be  the  worship  of  God  and  the  exercise  of  discipline. 
A  church  is  thus  distinguished  from  a  Bible,  missionary,  or  any 
similar  society  of  Christians. 

4.  To  constitute  it  a  churcli,  i.  e.,  externally  one  body,  it  must 
have  the  same  form  of  government  and  be  subject  to  some  com- 
mon tribunal.  The  different  classes  of  Presbyterians  in  this 
countiy,  though  professing  the  same  doctrines  and  adopting  the 
same  form  of  government,  are  not  all  members  of  the  same  ex- 
ternal church,  because  subject  to  difterent  tribunals. 

Now  the  question  is,  Is  this  a  correct  definition  of  a  church  ? 
Does  it  omit  anything  that  is  essential,  or  include  anything 
that  is  unessential  ?  The  only  things  which  we  can  think  of  as 
likely  to  be  urged  as  omissions,  are  the  ministry  and  the  sacra- 
ments. Few  things  in  our  July  number  seem  to  have  given 
Theophilus  more  pain  than  our  saying  that  the  ministry  is  not 
essential  to  the  church.  With  regard  to  this  point,  we  would  re- 
mark. 1.  That  we  believe  the  ministry  to  be  a  divine  institu- 
tion. 2.  That  it  was  designed  to  be  perpetual.  3.  That  it  has 
been  perpetuated.  4,  That  it  is  necessary  to  the  edification  and 
extension  of  the  church.  But  we  are  very  far  from  believing  the 
popish  doctrine  that  the  ministry  is  essential  to  the  being  of  a 
church,  and  that  there  is  no  church  where  there  is  no  ministry. 
Officers  are  necessary  to  the  well-being  of  a  nation,  and  no  na- 
tion can  long  exist  without  them.  But  a  nation  does  not  cease 
to  exist  when  the  king  or  president  dies.  The  nation  would  con- 
tiuue  though  every  civil  officer  was  cut  off  in  a  night ;  and 
blessed  be  God,  the  church  would  still  live,  though  all  ministers 
should  die  or  apostatize  at  once.  We  believe  with  Professor 
Thornwell,  and  with  the  real  living  church  of  God  in  all  ages, 
that  if  the  ministry  fails,  the  church  can  make  a  ministry ;  or 


232  IS    THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME 

rather  that  Christ,  who  is  in  his  churcli  by  the  Spirit,  would 
then,  as  he  does  now,  by  his  divine  call  constitute  men  ministers. 
It  strikes  us  as  most  extraordinary  for  a  Presbyterian  to  say  that 
the  ministry  is  essential  to  the  church,  and  that  it  must  enter 
into  the  definition  ;  when  our  own  book  makes  provision,  first, 
for  the  organization  of  a  church,  and  then  for  the  election  of  its 
officers,  A  number  of  believers  are  constituted  a  church,  and 
then,  and  not  until  they  are  a  church,  they  elect  their  elders  and 
call  a  pastor.  Every  vacant  church  is  a  practical  proof  that  the 
ministry  does  not  enter  into  the  definition  of  the  church.  The- 
ophilus  amuses  himself  at  our  expense  for  our  venturing  to  say, 
"  Bellarmine  has  the  credit  of  being  the  first  writer  who  thus 
corrupted  the  definition  of  the  church,"  that  is,  by  introducing 
subjection  to  lawful  jDastors  as  part  of  that  definition.  We  were 
well  aware  of  the  danger  of  asserting  a  negative.  We  knew  that 
we  had  not  read  every  writer  before  the  time  of  Bellarmine,  and 
that  we  could  remember  very  little  of  the  little  we  had  read. 
We  w^ere,  therefore,  wise  enough  not  to  say  that  no  man  before 
the  popish  cardinal  had  perpetrated  a  like  interpolation  into  the 
definition  of  the  church,  but  contented  ourselves  with  the  safe 
remark  that  he  has  the  credit  of  being  the  first  who  w^as  guilty 
of  that  piece  of  priestcraft.  That  he  has  that  credit  among  Prot- 
estants can  hardly  be  disputed.  Dean  Sherlock  says  :  "I  know 
indeed  of  late  the  clergy  have  in  a  great  measure  monopolized 
the  name  of  the  church,  whereas,  in  propriety  of  speech,  they  do 
not  belong  to  the  definition  of  a  church,"  any  more  than  a  shep- 
herd to  the  definition  of  a  flock,  which  is  his  illustration.  "  The 
learned  Launoy,"  he  adds,  "  has  produced  texts  of  Scripture  for 
this  definition  of  the  church,  viz.:  that  it  is  the  company  of  the 
faithful ;  and  has  proved  by  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  in  all 
ages,  even  down  to  the  Council  of  Trent  itself,  that  this  was  the 
received  notion  of  the  church,  till  it  was  altered  by  Canisius  and 
Bellarmine,"  the  former  "  putting  Christ's  vicar  into  the  defini- 
tion," the  latter,  subjection  "  to  lawful  pastors."  "  Whereas," 
continues  the  Dean,  "  before  these  men,  neither  pastors  nor 
bishops,  much  less  the  Pope  of  Kome,  were  ever  put  into  the 
general  definition  of  a  church."'  Very  much  the  same  complaint 
is  uttered  by  Dr.  Thomas  Jackson,  against  "Bellarmine,  Valen- 
tia,  Stapleton,  and  some  others,"  for  troubling  the  stream  of 
'  See  Preservative  against  Popery,  vol.  i.,  tit.  iii.,  ch.  i.,  p.  36. 


A    PART     OF    THE    VISIBLE    CHURCH?  233 

God's  word  as  to  the  nature  and  definition  of  the  church/  It 
surely  does  not  become  Presbyterians  to  exalt  the  clergy  beyond 
the  place  assigned  them  by  these  strong  Episcopalians,  and  make 
them  essential  to  the  being  of  the  church,  and  of  course  an  ele- 
ment in  the  definition  of  the  term. 

Very  much  the  same  remarks  may  be  made  in  reference  to  the 
sacraments.  We  of  course  beHeve,  1  That  the  sacraments  of 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  of  divine  appointment.  2. 
That  they  are  of  perpetual  obligation.  3.  That  they  are  signs 
and  seals  of  the  covenant,  and  means  of  grace.  4.  That  the  ob- 
servance of  them  is  a  high  duty  and  privilege,  and  consequently 
the  neglect  or  want  of  them,  a  great  sin  or  defect ;  but  to  make 
them  essential  to  the  church  is  to  make  them  essential  to  salva- 
tion, which  is  contrary  to  Scripture  If  baptism  made  a  man  a 
Christian,  if  it  communicated  a  new  nature  which  could  be  re- 
ceived in  no  other  way,  then  indeed  there  could  be  no  Christians 
and  no  church  without  baptism.  But  such  is  not  the  Protestant 
or  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  sacraments.  The  Hebrew  nation 
would  not  cease  to  be  Hebrews,  if  they  ceased  to  practice  cir- 
cumcision. They  did  not  in  fact  cease  to  be  the  church,  though 
they  neglected  that  rite  for  the  forty  years  they  wandered  in  the 
wilderness,  until  there  was  not  a  circumcised  man  among  them, 
save  Caleb  and  Joshua.  Yet  far  more  is  said  of  the  duty  and 
necessity  of  circumcision  in  the  Old  Testament  than  is  said  of 
baptism  in  the  New.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  our  church  that 
baptism  recognizes,  but  does  not  constitute  membership  in  the 
church.  Plain  and  important,  therefore,  as  is  the  duty  of  ad- 
ministering and  observing  these  ordinances,  they  are  not  to  be 
exalted  into  a  higher  place  than  that  assigned  them  in  the  word 
of  God.  Though  the  due  celebration  of  the  sacraments  may  very 
properly  be  enumerated,  in  one  sense,  among  the  signs  of  the 
church,  we  do  not  feel  authorized  or  permitted  by  the  authority 
of  Scripture,  to  make  sucli  celebration  essential  to  salvation  or  to 
the  existence  of  the  church.  If  any  of  our  brethren  should  differ 
from  us  as  to  this  point,  it  would  not  follow  that  they  must  re- 
ject the  definition  above  given.  For  as  the  sacraments  are  a 
means  and  a  mode  of  divine  worship,  the  due  celebration  of  them 
may  be  considered  as  included  in  that  clause  of  the  definition, 
which  declares  that  a  church  is  a  society  for  the  worship  of  God. 
'  Seo  treatise  on  the  church,  page  50,  Goode's  edition. 


234  IS    THE    CHURCH     OF     ROME 

We  revert  therefore  to  the  question,  Is  the  definition  given 
above  correct  ?  Is  a  church  an  organized  society  professing  the 
true  religion,  united  for  the  worship  of  God  and  the  exercise  of 
discipKne,  and  subject  to  the  same  form  of  government  and  to 
some  common  tribunal  ?  It  certainly  has  in  its  fiivor  the  com- 
mon iisus  loquendi.  When  we  speak  of  the  church  of  England, 
of  Scotland,  the  Free  church,  the  Secession  church,  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  church  ;  or  when  we  speak  of  a  single  congregation 
as  a  church,  as  the  church  at  Easton,  or  the  first,  second,  or  third 
Presbyterian  church  in  Philadelphia  ;  or  if  we  take  the  term  in 
the  New  England  sense,  as  distinguished  from  parish  or  congre- 
gation, still  all  these  cases  fall  under  the  definition.  By  the 
word  church,  in  all  such  cases,  we  mean  an  organized  society, 
professing  the  true  religion,  united  for  the  worship  of  God  and 
the  exercise  of  discipline,  under  the  same  form  of  government 
and  under  some  common  tribunal.  That  common  tribunal  in  a 
Congregational  church,  is  the  brotherhood  ;  in  a  Presbyterian 
church,  the  session  ;  in  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the  United 
States,  our  General  Assembly ;  in  the  Episcoj)al  church,  the  gen- 
eral convention ;  in  the  Church  of  England,  the  reigning  sover- 
eign ;  in  the  Evangelical  church  of  Prussia,  the  king.  In  all 
these  cases  it  is  subjection  to  some  independent  tribunal  that 
gives  unity  to  a  church,  in  the  light  in  which  it  is  here  contem- 
plated. 

2.  This  definition  is  substantially  the  one  given  in  our  stand- 
ards. "  A  particular  church  consists  of  a  number  of  j^rofessing 
Christians  with  their  ofispring,  voluntarily  associated  together  for 
divine  worship  and  godly  hving  agreeably  to  the  Holy  Scriptures ; 
and  submitting  to  a  certain  form  of  government.'  "  Professing 
Christians"  is  here  used  as  equivalent  to  "  those  professing  the 
true  religion,"  the  form  of  expression  adopted  in  the  Confession 
of  Faith  and  Larger  Catechism.  It  is  obvious  that  the  defini- 
tion suits  all  the  cases  mentioned  above,  applying  equally  well  to 
a  single  congregation,  and  to  a  whole  denomination  united  in  one 
body. 

3.  This  definition  suits  the  use  of  the  term  as  it  occurs  in 
many  passages  of  Scripture.  When  we  read  of  the  church  of 
Corinth,  of  Antioch,  of  Rome,  the  word  is  universally  admitted 
to  designate  a  number  of  persons  professing  the  true  religion, 

'  Form  of  Government,  ch.  2,  sec.  4. 


A    PART    OF    THE    VISIBLE    CHURCH?  235 

united  for  religious  worship  and  discipline,  under  some  common 
tribunal, 

4,  This  definition  is  one  to  which  the  principles  laid  down  on 
this  subject  in  Scripture  necessarily  lead.  The  Scriptures  teach 
that  the  faith  in  Christ  makes  a  man  a  Christian  ;  the  profession 
of  that  faith  makes  him  a  professing  Christian.  The  true,  or  in- 
visible church  consists  of  true  believers  ;  the  visible  church  cath- 
ohc,  of  all  professed  believers  ;  a  particular  visible  church,  of  a 
society  of  such  professors,  united  for  church  purposes  and  separ- 
ated from  other  societies  by  subjection  to  some  one  tribunal. 
These  seem  to  be  plain  scriptural  principles.  If  any  thing  else 
or  more  than  faith  in  Christ  is  absolutely  necessary  to  union  with 
him,  and  therefore  to  salvatien ;  then  something  more  than  faith 
is  necessary  to  make  a  man  a  Christian,  and  something  more 
than  the  profession  of  that  faith  to  make  him  a  professing  Chris- 
tian, and  consequently  some  other  sign  of  a  visible  church  must 
be  necessary  than  the  profession  of  the  true  religion.  But  we 
do  not  see  how  consistently  with  the  evangelical  system  of  doc- 
trine, and  especially  with  the  great  doctrine  that  salvation  is  by 
faith,  we  can  avoid  the  conclusion  that  all  true  believers  are  in 
the  true  church,  and  all  professing  believers  are  in  the  visible 
church. 

5.  Did  time  permit,  or  were  it  necessary,  it  could  easily  be 
proved  that  in  all  ages  of  the  church,  this  idea  of  the  church  has 
been  the  prevailing  one.  We  have  already  quoted  the  testimony 
of  Sherlock  against  the  Komanists  in  proof  of  this  point,  and  it 
would  be  easy  to  fill  volumes  with  quotations  from  ancient  and 
modern  writers,  to  the  same  effect.  "  Church,"  says  Hooker  in 
his  Eccles.  Polity,  vol.  ii.,  17,  "  is  a  word  which  art  hath  devised, 
thereby  to  sever  and  distinguish  that  society  of  men  which  profes- 
seth  the  true  religion  from  the  rest,  which  profess  it  not,  *  ••'•■  * 
whereupon,  because  the  only  object  which  separateth  ours  from 
other  religions,  is  Jesus  Christ,  in  whom  none  but  the  church 
doth  believe,  and  whom  none  but  the  church  doth  worship  ;  we 
find  that  accordingly  the  apostles  do  everywhere  distinguish 
hereby  the  church  from  infidels  and  Jews,  accounting  them  which 
call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  to  be  his  church."  And 
again,  B.  3,  §  1,  "  The  visible  church  of  Jesus  Christ  is  one  by 
outward  profession  of  those  things  which  supematurally  apper- 
tain to  the  essence  of  Christianity,  and  are  necessarily  required 


236  IS    THE     CHURCH    OF     ROME 

in  every  particular  Christian  man."  Barrow,  in  his  Discourse  on 
the  Unity  of  the  Church  says,  "  It  is  evident  that  the  church  is 
one  by  consent  in  faith  and  opinion  concerning  all  principal 
matters  of  opinion."  Bishop  Taylor,  in  his  Dissuasive  against 
Popery,  says,  "  The  church  (visible)  is  a  company  of  men  and 
women  professing  the  saving  doctrines  of  Jesus  Christ."  This 
is  but  saying  what  Tertullian,  Augustin,  Jerome,  Hilary,  Chry- 
sostom  and  the  whole  line  of  God's  people  have  said  from  the 
beginning. 

6.  Finally,  we  appeal  in  support  of  the  essential  element  of 
the  definition  of  a  church  given  above,  to  the  constant  testimony 
of  the  Spirit.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  the  Spirit  operates 
through  the  truth  ;  that  we  have  no  right  to  expect  his  influence 
(as  far  as  adults  are  concerned)  where  the  truth  is  not  known, 
and  that  where  it  is  known,  he  never  fails  to  give  it  more  or  less 
effect  ;  that  wherever  the  Spirit  is,  there  is  the  church,  since 
it  is  by  receiving  the  Spirit,  men  become  members  of  the  true 
church  ;  and  wherever  the  true  or  invisible  church  is,  there  is  the 
church  visible,  because  profession  of  the  faith  is  a  sure  conse- 
quence of  the  possession  of  faith ;  and,  therefore,  where  these 
true  believers  are  united  in  the  profession  of  that  truth  by  which 
they  are  saved,  with  a  society  or  community — then  such  society 
is  within  the  limits  of  the  visible  church,  i.  e.,  is  a  constituent 
portion  of  that  body  which  embraces  all  those  who  profess  the 
true  religion.  All  we  contend  for  is  that  the  church  is  the  body 
of  Christ,  that  those  in  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells  are  mem- 
bers of  that  body  ;  and  consequently  that  whenever  we  have 
evidence  of  the  presence  of  the  Spirit,  there  we  have  evidence  of 
the  presence  of  the  church.  And  if  these  evidences  occur  in  a 
society  professing  certain  doctrines  by  which  men  are  thus  born 
unto  God,  it  is  God's  own  testimony  that  such  society  is  still  a 
part  of  the  visible  church.  It  strikes  us  as  one  of  the  greatest 
absurdities  of  Kitualism,  whether  among  Romanists  or  Angli- 
cans, that  it  sets  up  a  definition  of  the  church,  not  at  all  com- 
mensurate with  its  actual  and  obvious  extent.  What  more 
glaring  absurdity  can  be  uttered  than  that  the  Episcopal  church 
in  this  country  is  here  the  only  church,  when  nine  tenths  of  the 
true  religion  of  the  country  exists  without  its  pale.  It  may  be 
man's  church,  but  God's  church  is  much  wider.  Wherever, 
therefore,  there  is  a  society  professing  truth,  by  which  men  are 


A    PAKT    OF     THE     VISIBLE     CHURCH?  237 

actually  born  unto  God,  that  society  is  within  the  definition  of 
the  church  given  in  our  standards,  and  if  as  a  society,  it  is 
united  under  one  tribunal  for  church  purposes,  it  is  itself  a 
church. 

The  next  step  in  the  argument  is,  of  course,  the  consideration 
of  the  question,  whether  the  church  of  Rome  comes  within  the 
definition,  the  correctness  of  which  we  have  endeavored  to  estab- 
lish ?  It  was  very  common  with  the  reformers  and  their  success- 
ors to  distinguish  between  the  papacy,  and  the  body  of  people 
professing  Christianity  under  its  dominion.  When,  by  the 
church  of  Rome  they  meant  the  papacy,  they  denounced  it  as 
the  mystical  Babylon,  and  synagogue  of  Satan  ;  when  they 
meant  by  it  the  people,  considered  as  a  community  professing 
the  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  they  admitted  it  to  be  a 
church.  This  distinction  is  natural  and  just,  though  it  imposes 
the  necessity  of  affirming  and  denying  the  same  proposition.  If 
by  the  church  of  Rome,  you  mean  one  thing,  it  is  not  a  church  ; 
if  you  mean  another,  it  is  a  church.  People  will  not  trouble 
themselves,  however,  with  such  distinctions,  though  they  often 
unconsciously  make  them,  and  are  forced  to  act  upon  them. 
Thus  by  the  word  England,  we  sometimes  mean  the  country, 
sometimes  the  government,  and  sometimes  the  people.  If  we 
mean  by  it  the  government,  we  may  say  (in  reference  to  some 
periods  of  its  history),  that  it  is  unjust,  cruel,  persecuting,  rapa- 
cious, opposed  to  Christ  and  his  kingdom  :  when  these  things 
could  not  be  said  with  truth  of  the  people.' 

*  "The  church  of  Rome,"  says  Bishop  Sanderson,  "may  be  considered,  1.  Material- 
iter,  as  it  is  a  church  professing  the  faith  of  Christ,  as  we  also  ^o  in  the  common 
points  of  agreement.  2.  Formaliter,  and  in  regard  to  what  we  call  Popery,  viz.,  the 
point  of  difference,  whether  concerning  the  doctrine  or  worsliip,  wherein  we  charge 
her  with  having  added  to  the  substance  of  faith  her  own  inventions.  3.  Conjunctim 
vro  toto  aggregato,  taking  both  together.  As  in  an  unsound  body,  we  may  consider 
the  body  by  itself;  the  disease  by  itself;  and  the  body  and  the  disease  both  together, 
as  they  make  a  diseased  body."  Considered  in  the  first  sense,  he  says,  it  is  a  churcli ; 
considered  in  the  second  sense  or  "formally,  in  regard  of  those  points  which  are 
properly  of  popery,  it  has  become  a  false  and  corrupt  church;  and  is  indeed  an 
anti-Christian  synagogue,  and  not  a  true  Christian  church  taking  truth  in  the 
second  sense."  He  had  previously  said:  "The  word  truth  applied  to  any  subject  is 
taken  either  absolute  or  respective.  Absolutely  a  thing  is  true,  when  it  hath  verifa- 
tern  entis  et  essentke,  with  all  those  essential  things  which  are  requisite  to  the  being 
and  existence  of  it.  Respedively,  when  over  and  above  these  essentials,  it  hath  also 
such  accidental  conditions  and  quahties,  as  should  make  it  perfect  and  commendably 


238  IS    THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME 

Though  we  regard  the  above  distinction  as  sound,  and  though 
we  can  see  no  more  real  contradiction  in  saying  Rome  is  a  church, 
and  is  not  a  church,  than  in  saying  man  is  mortal  and  yet  immor- 
tal, spiritual  yet  carnal,  a  child  of  Grod  yet  sold  under  sin  ;  yet 
as  the  distinction  is  not  necessary  for  the  sake  either  of  truth  or 
perspicuity,  we  do  not  intend  to  avail  ourselves  of  it.  All  that 
we  have  to  beg  is,  that  brethren  would  not  quote  against  us  the 
sweeping  declarations  and  denunciations  of  our  Protestant  fore- 
fathers against  popery  as  the  man  of  sin,  antichrist,  the  mystical 
Babylon,  and  synagogue  of  Satan,  as  proof  of  our  departure  from 
the  Protestant  faith.  In  all  those  denunciations  we  could  con- 
sistently join  ;  just  as  our  fathers,  as  Professor  Thomwell  ac- 
knowledges, while  uttering  those  denunciations,  still  admitted 
Rome,  in  one  sense,  to  be  a  church.  Our  present  object  is  to 
enquire  whether  the  church  of  Rome,  taking  the  term  as  Bishop 
Sanderson  says,  Conjunctim  pro  toto  aggregate ,  just  as  we  take 
the  term,  church  of  England,  falls  within  the  definition  of  a 
church  given  above. 

That  it  is  an  organized  society,  is  of  course  plain  ;  that  it  is 
united  for  the  purpose  of  worship  and  discipline  is  no  less  so. 
That  is,  it  is  the  professed  ostensible  object  of  the  society,  to 
teach  and  promote  the  Christian  religion,  to  convert  men  to  the 
faith,  to  edify  believers,  to  celebrate  the  worship  of  God,  and  to 
exercise  the  power  of  the  keys,  i.  e.,  the  peculiar  prerogatives  of 
a  church  in  matters  of  doctrine  and  discipline.  This  is  the  osten- 
sible professed  object  of  the  society.  That  its  rulers  have  left  its 
true  end  out  of  view,  and  perverted  it  into  an  engine  of  govern- 
ment and  self-aggrandizement  is  true,  and  very  wicked  ;  but  the 
same  thing  is  true  of  almost  all  established  churches.  It  has 
been  palpably  true  of  the  church  of  England,  and  scarcely  less 
obviously  true  of  the  church  of  Prussia,  as  well  as  the  Greek 
church  in  Russia.  When  a  church  is  perverted  by  its  rulers  into 
an  engine  of  state,  it  does  not  cease  to  be  a  church,  because  it  is 
by  the  church  as  such,  i.  e.,  as  a  society  designed  for  the  worship 
of  God  and  the  edification  of  his  people,  such  rulers  endeavor  to 
secure  their  own  secular  ends. 

The  only  point  really  open  to  debate  is,  whether  the  Romish 

good.  A  thing  may  be  true  in  the  first  sense,  and  yet  not  true  in  the  second,  but  false. 
As  a  man  may  be  a  true  man  {animal  rationale)  and  yet  a  false  knave."  Treatise  on 
the  Church,  pp.  214  and  219. 


A    PART     OF     THE    VISIBLE     CHURCH?  239 

cliurcli  as  a  society  professes  the  true  religion.  In  reference  to 
this  point  we  would  remark,  1st,  That  by  true  religion  in  this 
connection^  has  ever  been  understood,  and  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  must  be  understood,  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel. 
Men  may  enlarge  or  contract  their  list  of  such  doctrines  ;  but  it 
involves  a  contradiction  to  say,  that  those  who  hold  the  essen- 
tials of  the  gospel,  do  not  hold  the  gospel.  This  would  be  saying 
that  the  essence  of  a  thing,  is  not  the  thing  itself,  but  something 
else.  By  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel  we  mean,  and 
Protestants  have  been  accustomed  to  mean,  those  doctrines 
which,  in  the  language  of  Hooker,  "  are  necessarily  required  in 
every  particular  Christian  man."  The  question,  therefore,  as  cor- 
rectly stated  by  Professor  Thornwell,  really  is,  Whether  Rome  as 
a  society  still  teaches  truth  enough  to  save  the  soul  ?  2.  Our 
second  preliminary  remark  is,  that  in  determining  what  are  the 
essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  we  cannot  consent  to  bow  to 
any  other  authority  than  the  word  of  God.  We  cannot  with 
Romanists  and  Anghcans,  on  the  one  hand,  consent  to  make  the 
judgment  of  the  church  the  criterion  of  decision  on  this  subject ; 
nor  on  the  other,  can  we  submit  to  the  judgment  of  individuals  or 
sects,  some  of  which  would  close  not  the  church  only,  but  heaven 
itself,  against  all  Presbyterians,  others  against  all  Calvinists, 
others  against  all  Arminians,  others  against  all  who  sing  hymns. 
3d.  A  third  remark  is,  that  we  must  distinguish  between  what  is 
essential  to  the  gospel,  and  what  is  essential  for  a  particular  in- 
dividual to  believe.  The  former  is  a  fixed,  the  other  is  a  variable 
quantity.  The  gospel  in  its  essential  principles  is  now  what  it 
always  was  and  always  must  be.  But  what  is  essential  for  a 
man  to  believe  depends  upon  that  man's  opportunities  of  knowl- 
edge. A  poor  Hottentot  may  get  to  heaven  though  he  knows 
nothing  about,  or  should  unintelligently  reject  many  doctrines 
which  it  would  argue  an  unsanctified  heart  in  a  man  nurtured 
in  the  bosom  of  a  pure  church,  even  to  question.  4.  We 
must  interpret  language  according  to  the  usus  loquendi  of 
those  who  use  it,  and  not  according  to  our  own  usage.  If  a  man 
defines  justification  so  as  to  include  sanctification,  and  says  that 
justification  is  by  works  as  well  as  by  faith,  we  must  understand 
him  accordingly.  We  may  say  a  man  is  sanctified  by  love, 
hope,  and  other  Christian  graces  and  works  ;  meaning  that  all 
these  tend  to  promote  his  conformity  to  Grod  ;  when  we  could 


240  ISTHECHURCHOFROME 

not  say,  that  he  is  justified,  in  our  sense  of  the  term,  by  those 
things. 

It  is  then  impossible  to  give  any  list  of  essential  doctrines  of 
the  gospel,  if  so  doing  were  to  imply  that  all  doctrines  not  in- 
cluded in  such  list  might  be  safely  rejected  by  men,  no  matter 
what  their  opportunities  for  knowledge  may  be.  By  essential 
doctrines  we  mean,  as  already  stated,  those  which  no  man  can  be 
saved  without  believing.  We  shall  not  undertake  the  delicate 
task  of  giving  a  list  of  such  doctrines,  but  content  ourselves  with 
remarking  that  the  Scriptures  adopt  a  twofold  mode  of  state- 
ment on  this  subject.  First,  they  give  certain  doctrines  which, 
they  declare,  if  any  man  believes,  he  shall  bo  saved.  And,  second- 
ly, they  state  certain  doctrines  which,  if  a  man  rejects,  he  shall  be 
lost.  These  two  modes  of  statement  must  be  consistent,  i.  e., 
they  cannot  lead  logically  to  contradictory  conclusions,  even 
thouo;h  the  Bible  arranges  under  the  one  head  some  doctrines 
which  it  does  not  place  under  the  other.  One  reason  why  more 
particulars  are  found  under  the  latter  head  than  the  former,  no 
doubt  is,  that  the  rejection  of  a  doctrine  implies  the  knowledge 
of  it.  And  the  rejection  of  a  doctrine  when  known  may  be  fatal, 
when  the  knowledge  of  it,  as  a  distinct  proposition,  may  not  be 
essential  to  salvation.  These  essential  doctrines  therefore  may 
be  learned  both  from  the  affirmative  and  negative  statements  of 
the  Bible.  For  example,  it  is  said,  whosoever  believes  in  Christ 
shall  be  saved  ;  whosoever  believes  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God, 
is  born  of  God  ;  whosoever  believes  and  confesses  that  Christ  is 
Lord,  does  it  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  fatal 
to  deny  God,  for  he  that  cometh  unto  God  must  believe  that  he 
is;  so  is.  also  the  denial  of  God's  mercy,  for  we  must  believe  that 
he  is  the  re  warder  of  those  who  diligently  seek  him.  He  who 
denies  the  Son,  the  same  hath  not  the  Father ;  he  who  denies 
sin,  or  that  he  is  a  sinner,  the  truth  is  not  in  him ;  he  who  rejects 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  has  only  a  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment ; 
he  who  seeks  justification  from  the  law,  has  fallen  from  grace, 
and  Christ  shall  profit  him  nothing ;  he  who  denies  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  makes  our  preaching  and  our  faith  vain  ;  he  who 
denies  holiness,  and  the  obligation  of  holiness,  has  denied  the 
faith  and  is  worse  than  an  infidel;  so  he  who  says  that  the 
resurrection  is  past  already,  has  made  shipwreck  of  the  faith. 
The  denial  of  these  doctrines  is  said  to  forfeit  salvation ;    but  it 


A    PART     OF    THE     VISIBLE    CHURCH?  241 

does  not  follow  that  they  must  all  be  clearly  known  and  intelli- 
gently received  in  order  to  salvation.  It  is  a  historical  fact,  as 
far  as  such  a  fact  can  be  historically  known,  that  men  have  been 
saved  who  knew  nothing  of  the  gospel  but  that  Jesus  Christ  came 
into  the  world  to  save  sinners.  The  Scriptures  do  not  warrant 
us  in  lixing  the  minimum  of  divine  truth  by  which  the  Spirit 
may  save  the  soul.  We  do  know,  however,  that  if  any  man  be- 
lieves that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  he  is  born  of  God  ;  that  no 
true  worshipper  of  Christ  ever  perishes.  Paul  sends  his  Christian 
salutations  to  all  in  every  place,  theirs  and  ours,  who  call  upon 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  their  Lord  and  ours. 

That  Romanists  as  a  society  profess  the  true  religion,  meaning 
thereby  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  those  doctrines 
which  if  truly  believed  will  save  the  soul,  is,  as  we  think,  plain. 

1.  Because  they  believe  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  word  of  God. 

2.  They  direct  that  the  Scriptures  should  be  understood  and 
received  as  they  were  understood  by  the  Christian  Fathers.  3. 
They  receive  the  three  general  creeds  of  the  church,  the  Apostle's, 
the  Nicene,  and  the  Athanasian,  or  as  these  are  summed  up  in 
the  creed  of  Pius  V.  4.  They  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father 
Almighty,  maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  and  of  all  things  visible 
•ind  invisible.  In  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  only-begotten  Son 
of  God,  begotten  of  his  Father  before  all  worlds,  God  of  God, 
Light  of  Light,  very  God  of  very  God,  begotten  not  made,  being 
of  one  substance  with  the  Father,  by  whom  all  things  were  made. 
Who  for  us  men,  and  for  our  salvation,  came  down  from  heaven, 
and  was  incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  was 
made  man.  And  was  crucified  also  for  us  under  Pontius  Pilate, 
suffered  and  was  buried.  And  the  third  day  rose  again,  accord- 
ing to  the  Scripture ;  and  ascended  into  heaven  and  sitteth  at  the 
right  hand  of  the  Father.  And  he  shall  come  again  with  glory 
to  judge  both  the  quick  and  the  dead,  whose  kingdom  shall  have 
no  end.  And  they  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Lord  and  giver 
of  life,  who  proceeded  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  who  with 
the  Father  and  the  Son  is  worshipped  and  glorified,, who  spake 
by  the  prophets.  And  they  believe  in  one  catholic  apostolic 
church.  They  acknowledge  one  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  look  for  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the  life  of  the  world 
to  come. 

If  this  creed  were  submitted  to  any  intelligent  Christian  with- 

16 


■2-^  18    THE    CHURCH     OF     ROME 

out  his  knowing  whence  it  came,  could  he  hesitate  to  say  that 
it  was  the  creed  of  a  Christian  church  ?  Could  he  deny  that 
these  are  the  very  terms  in  which  for  ages  the  general  faith  of 
Christendom  has  been  expressed  ?  Could  he,  without  renounc- 
ing the  Bible,  say  that  the  sincere  belief  of  these  doctrines  would 
not  secure  eternal  life  ?  Can  any  man  take  it  upon  himself  in 
the  sight  of  God,  to  assert  there  is  not  truth  enough  in  the 
above  summary  to  save  the  soul  ?  If  not,  then  a  society  profess- 
ing that  creed  professes  the  true  religion  in  the  sense  stated 
above.  5.  We  argue  from  the  acknowledged  fact  that  Grod  has 
always  had,  still  has,  and  is  to  have  a  people  in  that  church  until 
its  final  destruction  ;  just  as  he  had  in  the  midst  of  corrupt  and 
apostate  Israel.  We  admit  that  Kome  has  grievously  apostatized 
from  the  faith,  the  order  and  the  worship  of  the  church ;  that  she 
has  introduced  a  multitude  of  false  doctrines,  a  corrupt  and 
superstitious  and  even  idolatrous  worship,  and  a  most  oppressive 
and  cruel  government ;  but  since  as  a  society  she  still  retains  the 
profession  of  saving  doctrines,  and  as  in  point  of  fact,  by  those 
doctrines  men  are  born  unto  God  and  nurtured  for  heaven,  we 
dare  not  deny  that  she  is  still  a  part  of  the  visible  church.  We 
consider  such  a  denial  a  direct  contradiction  of  the  Bible,  and  of 
the  facts  of  God's  providence.  It  was  within  the  limits  of  the 
church  the  great  anti-christian  power  was  to  arise  ;  it  was  in  the 
church  the  man  of  sin  was  to  exalt  himself;  and  it  was  over 
the  church  he  was  to  exercise  his  baneful  and  cruel  power. 

The  most  common  and  plausible  objections  to  the  admission 
that  the  church  of  Rome  is  still  a  part  of  the  visible  church  are 
the  following.  First,  it  is  said  that  she  does  not  profess  the  true 
religion,  because  though  she  retains  the  forms  or  propositions  in 
which  the  truth  is  stated,  she  vitiates  them  by  her  explanations. 
To  which  we  answer,  1.  That  in  her  general  creeds,  adopted  and 
professed  by  the  people,  no  explanations  are  given.  The  doc- 
trines are  asserted  in  the  general  terms,  just  as  they  were  presented 
and  professed  before  the  Romish  apostacy.  2.  That  the  explana- 
tions, as  .given  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  are  as  stated  by 
Theophilus,  designedly  two-sided  and  ambiguous  ;  so  that  while 
one  class  of  Romanists  take  them  in  a  sense  consistent  with  their 
saving  efficacy,  others  take  them  in  a  sense  which  destroys  their 
value.  It  is  notorious  that  the  thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church 
of  England  are  taken  in  a  Cahanistic  sense  by  one  class  of  her 


A    PART     OF    THE     VISIBLE     CHURCH?  243 

theologians  ;  in  a  semi-Pelagian  sense  by  another  class  ;  and  in 
a  Eoraish  sense  by  a  third.  3.  While  we  admit  the  truth  of  the 
objection  as  a  fact,  viz.,  that  the  dominant  class  of  theologians  do 
explain  away  most  of  the  saving  doctrines  of  her  ancient  creeds, 
yet  we  deny  that  this  destroys  thfe  argument  from  the  profession 
of  those  creeds,  in  proof  that  as  a  society  she  retains  saving 
truth.  Because  it  is  the  creeds  and  not  the  explanations,  that 
constitute  the  profession  of  the  people. 

Secondly,  it  is  objected  that  Kome  professes  fundamental 
errors.  To  this  we  answer,  1.  That  we  acknowledge  that  the 
teaching  of  many  of  her  most  authoritative  authors  is  fatally 
erroneous.  2.  That  the  decisions  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  as 
understood  by  one  class  of  the  Romish  theologians,  are  not  less 
at  variance  with  the  truth ;  but  not  as  they  are  in  fact  explained 
by  another  class  of  her  doctors.  3.  That  these  decisions  and 
explanations  are  not  incorporated  in  the  creed  professed  by  the 
people.  4.  That  the  profession  of  fundamental  error  by  a  socie- 
ty, does  not  necessarily  destroy  its  character  as  a  church,  provided 
it  retains  with  such  error  the  essential  truths  of  religion.  The 
Jewish  church  at  the  time  of  Christ,  by  her  officers,  in  the  syn- 
agogues and  in  the  sanhedrim,  and  by  all  her  great  parties,  pro- 
fessed fundamental  error  justification  by  the  law,  for  example  ; 
and  yet  retained  its  being  as  a  church,  in  the  bosom  of  which  the 
elect  of  Grod  still  lived. 

Thirdly,  Rome  is  idolatrous,  and  therefore  in  no  sense  a  church. 
To  this  we  answer,  1.  That  the  practice  of  the  great  body  of  the 
church  of  Rome  is  beyond  doubt  idolatrous.  2.  That  the  avowed 
principles  of  the  majority  of  her  teachers  are  also  justly  liable  to 
the  same  charge.  3.  That  the  j)rinciples  of  another  class  of  her 
doctors,  who  say  they  worship  neither  the  images  themselves, 
nor  through  them,  but  simply  in  the  presence  of  them,  are  not 
idolatrous  in  the  ordinary  meaning  of  that  term.  4.  That  it  is 
not  necessary  that  every  man  should  be,  in  the  fatal  sense  of  that 
word,  an  idolater  in  order  to  remain  in  that  church  ;  otherwise 
there  could  be  no  true  children  of  God  within  its  pale.  But  the 
contrary  is,  as  a  fact,  on  all  hands  conceded.  5.  We  know  that 
the  Jewish  church,  though  often  overrun  with  idolatry,  never 
ceased  to  exist. 

Fourthly,  it  is  objected  that  the  people  of  Grod  are  commanded 
to  come  out  of  the  church  of  Rome,  which  would  not  be  the  case 


244  IS    THE    CHURCH    OF    ROME 

were  she  still  a  part  of  the  visible  church.  To  this  we  answer, 
that  the  people  of  God  are  commanded  to  come  out  of  every 
church  which  either  professes  error,  or  which  imposes  any  terms 
of  communion  which  hurt  an  enlightened  conscience.  The  non- 
conformists in  the  time  of  Charles  II.,  were  bound  to  leave  the 
church  of  England,  and  yet  did  not  thereby  asscr^  tliat  it  was  no 
longer  a  church. 

Fifthly,  it  is  said  we  give  up  too  much  to  the  papists  if  we 
admit  Romanists  to  be  in  the  church.  To  this  we  answer.  Every 
false  position  is  a  weak  position.  The  cause  of  truth  suffers  in 
no  way  more  than  from  identifying  it  with  error,  which  is  always 
done  when  its  friends  advocate  it  on  false  principles.  When  one 
says,  we  favor  intemperance,  unless  we  say  that  the  use  of  intox- 
icating liquors  is  sinful ;  another,  that  we  favor  slavery,  unless 
we  say  slaveholding  is  a  sin  ;  and  ?i  third,  that  we  favor  popery 
unless  we  say  the  church  of  Rome  is  no  church,  they  all,  as  it 
seems  to  us,  make  the  same  mistake,  and  greatly  injure  the  cause 
in  which  they  are  engaged.  They  give  the  adversary  an  advan- 
tage over  them,  and  they  fail  to  enlist  the  strength  of  their  own 
side.  Men  who  are  anxious  to  promote  temperance,  cannot  join 
societies  which  avow  principles  which  they  beheve  to  be  untrue  ; 
and  men  who  believe  popery  to  be  the  greatest  modern  enemy  of 
the  gospel,  cannot  co-operate  in  measures  of  opposition  to  that 
growing  evil,  which  are  founded  on  the  denial  of  what  appear  to 
them  important  scriptural  principles.  It  is  a  great  mistake  to 
suppose  popery  is  aided  by  admitting  what  truth  it  does  include. 
What  gives  it  its  power,  what  constitutes  its  peculiarly  danger- 
ous character,  is  that  it  is  not  pure  infidelity  ;  it  is  not  the  en- 
tire rejection  of  the  gospel,  but  truth  surrounded  with  enticing 
and  destructive  error.  Poison  by  itself  is  not  so  seductive,  and 
therefore  not  so  dangerous,  as  when  mixed  with  food.  We  do 
not  believe  that  those  of  our  brethren  from  whom  we  are  so  un- 
fortunate as  to  differ  on  this  subject,  have  a  deeper  impression 
than  we  have  either  of  the  destructive  character  of  the  errors  of 
popery,  or  of  the  danger  to  which  religion  and  liberty  are  exposed 
from  its  progress.  We  believe  it  to  be  by  far  the  most  danger- 
ous form  of  delusion  and  error  that  has  ever  arisen  in  the  Chris- 
tian world,  and  all  the  more  dangerous  from  its  having  arisen 
and  established  itself  in  the  church,  or  temple  of  God. 


VIII. 

FINNEY'S  LECTURES  ON  THEOLOGY.^ 

This  is  in  more  senses  than  one  a  remarkable  book.  It  is  to  a 
degree  very  unusual  an  original  work  ;  it  is  the  product  of  the 
author's  own  mind.  The  principles  which  he  holds,  have  indeed 
been  held  by  others  ;  and  the  conclusions  at  which  he  arrives  bad 
been  reached  before  ;  but  still  it  is  abundantly  evident  that  all 
the  principles  here  advanced  are  adopted  by  the  writer,  not  on 
authority,  but  on  conviction,  and  that  the  conclusions  presented 
have  all  been  wrought  out  by  himself  and  for  himself.  The  work 
is  therefore  in  a  high  degree  logical.  It  is  as  hard  to  read  as 
Euclid.  Nothing  can  be  omitted  ;  nothing  passed  over  slightly. 
The  unhappy  reader  once  committed  to  a  perusal  is  obliged  to  go 
on,  sentence  by  sentence,  through  the  long  concatenation.  There 
is  not  one  resting-place  ;  not  one  lapse  into  amplification,  or  de- 
clamation, from  beginning  to  the  close.  It  is  like  one  of  those 
spiral  staircases,  which  lead  to  the  top  of  some  high  tower,  with- 
out a  landing  from  the  base  to  the  summit ;  which  if  a  man  has 
once  ascended,  he  resolves  never  to  do  the  like  again.  The  author 
begins  with  certain  postulates,  or  what  he  calls  first  truths  of 
reason,  and  these  he  traces  out  with  singular  clearness  and 
strength  to  their  legitimate  conclusions.  We  do  not  see  that 
there  is  a  break  or  a  defective  link  in  the  whole  chain.  If  you 
grant  his  principles,  you  have  already  granted  his  conclusions. 
Such  a  work  must  of  course  be  reckless.  Having  committed 
himself  to  the  guidance  of  the  discursive  understanding,  which 

'  Lectwres  on  Systematic  Theology,  embracing  Lectures  on  Moral  Government,  together 
with  Atonement,  Moral  and  Physical  Depravity,  Philosophical  Theories,  and  Evidences 
of  Regeneration.  By  Rev.  Charles  J.  Finney,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Oberlin 
Collegiate  Institute.  Oberlin :  James  M.  Fitch.  Boston :  Crocker  &  Brewster.  New 
York:  Saxton  &  Miles.    1846.    pp.  587. — Peinoeton  Review,  April,  1847. 


246         Finney's    lectures    on    theology. 

he  sometimes  calls  the  intelligence,  and  sometimes  the  reason, 
and  to  which  he  alone  acknowledges  any  real  allegiance,  he  pur- 
sues his  remorseless  course,  regardless  of  any  protest  from  other 
sources.  The  Scriptures  are  throughout  recognized  as  a  mere 
subordinate  authority.  They  are  allowed  to  come  in  and  bear 
confirmatory  testimony,  but  their  place  is  altogether  secondary. 
Even  God  himself  is  subordinate  to  "  the  intelligence  ;".  his  will 
can  impose  no  obligation  ;  it  only  discloses  what  is  obligatory  in 
its  own  nature  and  by  the  law  of  reason.  There  can  be  no  posi- 
tive laws,  for  nothing  binds  the  conscience  but  the  moral  law, 
nothing  is  obligatory  but  what  tends  to  the  highest  good,  and  as 
a  means  to  that  end,  which  must  be  chosen  not  out  of  regard  for 
God,  not  for  the  sake  of  the  moral  excellence  implied  in  it,  but 
for  its  own  sake  as  what  alone  has  any  intrinsic  value.  All 
virtue  consists  "  in  obedience  to  the  moral  law  as  revealed  in  the 
reason."  301.  "  Benevolence  {i.  e.,  virtue)  is  yielding  the  will 
up  unreservedly  to  the  demands  of  the  intelligence."  275.  Moral 
law  "  is  the  soul's  idea  or  conception  of  that  state  of  heart  or  Kfe 
which  is  exactly  suited  to  its  nature  and  relations.  It  cannot  be 
too  distinctly  understood,  that  moral  law  is  nothing  more  or 
less  than  the  law  of  nature,  that  is,  it  is  the  rule  imposed  on  us, 
not  by  the  arbitrary  will  of  any  being,  but  by  our  own  intelli- 
gence." P.  6.  It  is  obligatory  also  upon  every  moral  agent, 
entirely  independent  of  the  will  of  God.  Their  nature  and  rela- 
tions being  given  and  their  intelligence  being  developed,  moral 
law  must  be  obligatory  upon  them,  and  it  lies  not  in  the  option 
of  any  being  to  make  it  otherwise.  "  To  pursue  a  course  of  con- 
duct suited  to  their  nature  and  relations,  is  necessarily  and  self- 
evidently  obligatory,  the  willing  or  nilling  of  any  being  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding."  P.  5.  As  man's  allegiance  is  to 
the  universe — to  being  in  general,  and  the  rule  of  his  obedience 
his  own  intelligence,  God  is  reduced  to  the  same  category.  He 
is  "  under  moral  law,"  he  is  bound  to  seek  the  highest  good  of 
being,  and  as  the  highest  well-being  of  the  universe  demands 
moral  government,  and  as  God  is  best  qualified,  "it  is  his  duty 
to  govern."  P.  19.  "  His  conscience  must  demand  it."  P.  20. 
Our  obligation,  however,  to  obey  him  rests  neither  on  our  de- 
pendence, nor  on  his  infinite  superiority,  but  simply  on  "  the 
intrinsic  value  of  the  interests  to  be  secured  by  government,  and 
conditionated  upon  the  fact,  that  government  is  the  necessaiy 


finnet's   lectures    on   theology.         247 

means  or  condition  of  securing  that  end."  P.  24.  God's  right 
is  therefore  limited  by  its  foundation,  "  by  the  fact,  that  thus 
far,  and  no  further,  government  is  necessary  to  the  highest  good 
of  the  universe.  No  legislation  in  heaven  or  earth — no  enact- 
ment can  impose  obligation,  except  upon  condition  that  such 
legislation  is  demanded  by  the  highest  good  of  the  governor  and 
the  governed.  Unnecessary  legislation  is  invalid  legislation.  Un- 
necessary government  is  tyranny.  It  can  in  no  case  be  founded 
in  right."  P.  24.  The  question  is  not,  what  form  of  truth  may 
be  conveyed  under  these  expressions  ;  we  quote  them  as  exhibit- 
ing the  animus  of  the  book  ;  we  bring  them  forward  as  exhibiting 
what  we  have  called  the  recklessness  of  the  writer ;  his  tracing 
out  his  principles  to  conclusions  which  shock  the  ordinary  sensi- 
bilities of  Christians  ;  which  assume,  to  say  the  least,  principles 
inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  religion  as  presented  in  the  Bible 
and  as  avowed  by  the  vast  body  of  the  people  of  God.  The 
Scriptures  assume  that  our  allegiance  is  to  God,  and  not  to  being 
in  general ;  that  the  foundation  of  our  obligation  to  obey  him,  is 
his  infinite  excellence,  and  not  the  necessity  of  obedience  to  the 
highest  happiness  of  moral  agents  ;  and  that  the  rule  of  our 
obedience  is  his  will,  and  not  "  the  soul's  conception"  of  what  is 
suited  to  our  nature  and  relations.  According  to  the  doctrine  of 
this  book,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  religion,  or  the  service  of  God 
as  God.  The  universe  has  usurped  his  place,  as  the  supreme  ob- 
ject of  love  ;  and  reason,  or  "  the  intelligence,"  has  fallen  heir 
to  his  authority.  A  very  slight  modification  in  the  form  of  state- 
ment, would  bring  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Finney,  into  exact  con- 
formity to  the  doctrine  of  the  modern  German  school,  which 
makes  God  but  a  name  for  the  moral  law  or  order  of  the  uni- 
verse, or  reason  in  the  abstract.  It  is  in  vain,  however,  to  tell 
Mr.  Finney  that  his  conclusions  shock  the  moral  and  religious 
consciousness  ;  what  right,  he  asks,  has  "  the  empirical  conscious- 
ness" to  be  heard  in  the  premises.  "  If  the  intelligence  affirms 
it,  it  must  be  true  or  reason  deceives  us.  But  if  the  intelligence 
deceives  in  this,  it  may  also  in  other  things.  If  it  fail  us  here,  it 
fails  us  on  the  most  important  of  all  questions.  If  reason  gives 
us  false  testimony,  we  can  never  know  truth  from  error  upon  any 
moral  subject ;  we  certainly  can  never  know  what  religion  is,  if 
the  testimony  of  reason  can  be  set  aside.  If  the  intelligence  can- 
not be  safely  appealed  to,  how  are  we  to  know  what  the  Bible 


248  Finney's   lectures   on   theology. 

means  ?  for  it  is  the  only  faculty  by  which  we  get  at  the  truth 
of  the  oracles  of  God."  P.  171.' 

Our  object  at  present,  however,  is  not  to  discuss  principles,  but 
to  state  the  general  character  of  this  work.  It  is  eminently  log- 
ical, rationalistic,  reckless  and  confident.  Conclusions  at  war 
with  the  common  faith  of  Christians,  are  not  only  avowed  with- 
out hesitation,  but  "  sheer  nonsense,"  "  stark  nonsense,"  "  emi- 
nently nonsensical,"  are  the  terms  applied  to  doctrines  which 
have  evei  '  [.  .^eir  place  in  the  faith  of  God's  people,  and  which 
will  maintain  their  position  undisturbed,  long  after  this  work  is 
buried  in  oblivion."  Men  have  other  sources  of  knowledge  than 
the  understanding,  the  feeble  flickering  light  burning  in  the 
midst  of  misty  darkness.  If  deaf  to  the  remonstrance  of  our 
moral  nature,  to  the  protests  even  of  the  emotional  part  of  our 
constitution,  we  follow  that  light,  it  belongs  to  history  and  not 
to  prophecy  to  record  the  issue.  It  really  seems  strange  when 
the  first  sentence  of  his  preface  informs  the  reader  that  "  the 
truths  of  the  blessed  gospel  have  been  hidden  under  a  false  phi- 
losophy," that  the  author,  instead  of  presenting  those  truths  free 
from  that  false  ingredient,  should  write  a  book  which  hardly  pre- 
tends to  be  anything  else  than  philosophy.  The  attempt  to  cure 
philosophy  by  philosophy  is  a  homoeopathic  mode  of  treatment 
in  which  we  have  very  little  confidence.  The  gospel  was  intended 
for  plain  people.  Its  doctrines  admit  of  being  plainly  stated. 
They  imply  indeed  a  certain  psychology,  and  a  certain  moral 
system.  The  true  and  Christian  method  is  to  begin  with  the 
doctrines,  and  let  them  determine  our  philosophy,  and  not  to 
begin  with  pliilosophy  and  allow  it  to  give  law  to  the  doctrines. 
The  title  page  of  this  book  is  not  plainer  than  the  fact  that  the 
doctrines  which  it  inculcates  are  held,  not  on  the  authority  of  God 
speaking  in  his  word,  but  on  the  authority  of  reason.      They  are 

'  The  remarks  quoted  in  the  test  are  made  in  immediate  reference  to  the  author's 
doctrine  that  "moral  character  is  always  wholly  right  or  wholly  wrong,"  or,  that 
every  moral  agent  is  always  either  perfectly  free  from  sin  or  totally  depraved ;  or, 
that  "  they  are  at  all  times  as  sinful  or  holy  as  with  their  knowledge  they  can  be." 
P.  554. 

"  On  p.  499,  after  referring  to  Dr.  Griffin's  assertion  that  until  the  heart  is  changed 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  gospel  excites  its  enmity  to  God,  Mr.  Finney  exclaims,  "0 
orthodoxy,  falsely  so  called,  how  absurd  and  false  thou  art  1  what  an  enemy  thou 
art  to  God  ;  what  a  stumbling-block  to  man  ;  what  a  leaven  of  unrighteousness  and 
hell  is  such  a  dogma  as  this  I" 


Finney's  lectures   on  theology.  249 

almost  without  exception  first  proved,  demonstrated  as  true,  as 
the  necessary  sequences  of  admitted  or  assumed  principles,  before 
the  Bible  is  so  much  as  named.  It  is  by  profession  a  philosophy, 
or  a  philosophical  demonstration  of  certain  doctrines  of  morals 
and  religion,  and  which  might  be  admitted,  and  adopted  as  true 
by  a  man  who  did  not  believe  one  word  of  the  Scriptures,  or  who 
had  never  heard  of  their  existence.  The  only  doctrines  which  are 
assumed  as  facts,  and  not  deduced  from  assumed  premises,  are 
the  atonement  as  a  fact,  and  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on 
the  mind,  and  as  to  the  former  its  nature,  design,  and  effect  are 
all  proved  a  priori  ;  and  as  to  the  latter,  the  writer  professes 
"  to  understand  the  philosophy  of  the  Spirit's  influence."  P.  28. 
It  is  altogether  a  misnomer  to  call  such  a  book  "  Lectures  on 
Systematic  Theology."  It  would  give  a  far  more  definite  idea  of 
its  character,  to  call  it,  "  Lectures  on  Moral  Law  and  Philoso- 
phy." Under  the  former  title,  we  are  authorized  to  expect  a 
systematic  exhibition  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  as  resting  on 
the  authority  of  a  divine  revelation  ;  under  the  latter  we  should 
expect  to  find,  what  is  here  presented,  a  regular  evolution  from 
certain  radical  principles  of  a  code  of  moral  laws.  We  wish  it  to 
be  distinctly  understood,  that  we  neither  deny  nor  lightly  esti- 
mate works  of  the  kind  just  described.  There  can  be  no  higher 
or  more  worthy  subject  of  study,  apart  from  the  word  of  God, 
than  the  human  soul,  and  the  laws  which  regulate  its  action  and 
determine  its  obligations.  Nor  do  we  suppose  that  these  subjects 
can  ever  be  divorced  from  theology.  They  occupy  so  much 
ground  in  common,  that  they  never  have  been  and  never  can  be 
kept  distinct.  But  still,  it  is  very  important  that  things  should 
be  called  by  their  right  names,  and  not  j^resented  to  the  public 
for  what  they  are  not.  Let  moral  philosophy  be  called  moral 
philosophy  and  not  Systematic  Theology. 

While  we  admit  that  the  philosophical  and  theological  element, 
in  any  system  of  Christian  doctrine,  cannot  be  kept  distinct,  it  is 
of  the  last  importance  that  they  should  be  kept,  as  already 
remarked,  in  their  proper  relative  position.  There  is  a  view  of 
free  agency  and  of  the  grounds  and  extent  of  moral  obligation, 
which  is  perfectly  compatible  with  the  doctrines  of  original  sin, 
efficacious  grace,  and  divine  sovereignty  ;  and  there  is  another 
view  of  those  subjects,  as  obviously  incompatible  with  these  doc- 
trines.     There  are  two  courses  which  a  theologian  may  adopt. 


250    Finney's  lectures  on  theology. 

He  may  either  turn  to  the  Scriptures  and  ascertain  whether  those 
doctrines  are  really  taught  therein.  If  satisfied  on  that  point, 
and  especially  if  he  experience  through  the  teachings  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  their  power  on  his  own  heart,  if  they  become  to  him  mat- 
ters not  merely  of  speculative  belief  but  of  experimental  knowl- 
edge, he  will  be  constrained  to  make  his  philosophy  agree  with 
his  theology.  He  cannot  consciously  hold  contradictory  proposi- 
tions, and  must  therefore  make  his  convictions  harmonize  as  far 
as  he  can  ;  and  those  founded  on  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  will 
modify  and  control  the  conclusions  to  which  his  own  understand- 
ing would  lead  him.  Or,  he  may  begin  with  his  philosophy  and 
determine  what  is  true  with  regard  to  the  nature  of  man  and  his 
responsibilities,  and  then  turn  to  the  Scriptures  and  force  them 
into  agreement  with  foregone  conclusions.  Every  one  in  the 
slightest  degree  acquainted  with  the  history  of  theology,  knows 
that  this  latter  course  has  been  adopted  by  errorists  from  the 
earliest  ages  to  the  present  day.  Our  own  age  has  witnessed 
what  must  be  regarded  as,  on  the  whole,  a  very  beneficial  change 
in  this  respect.  Rationalists,  instead  of  coercing  Scripture  into 
agreement  with  their  philosophy,  have  agreed  to  let  each  stand 
on  its  own  foundation.  The  modern  systems  of  theology  proceed- 
ing from  that  school,  give  first  the  doctrines  as  they  are  presented 
in  the  Bible,  and  then  examine  how  far  those  doctrines  agree 
with,  and  how  far  they  contradict  the  teachings  of  philosophy, 
or — as  they  are  commonly  regarded — the  deductions  of  reason. 
As  soon  as  public  sentiment  allows  of  this  course  being  pursued  in 
this  country,  it  will  be  a  great  relief  to  all  concerned.  We  do 
not,  however,  mean  to  intimate  that  those  who  among  ourselves 
pursue  the  opposite  course,  and  who  draw  out  that  system  of 
moral  and  religious  truth,  as  they  sometimes  express  it,  which 
every  man  has  in  the  constitution  of  his  own  nature,  before  they 
go  to  the  Bible  for  instruction,  and  whose  system  is  therefore  es- 
sentially rationalistic,  are  insincere  in  their  professions  of  faith  in 
the  Bible.  It, is  too  familiar  a  fact  to  be  doubted,  that  if  a  man 
is  previously  convinced  the  Scriptures  cannot  teach  certain  doc- 
trines, it  is  no  difficult  task  to  persuade  himself  that  they  do  not 
in  fact  teach  them.  Still  there  is  a  right  and  a  wrong  method  of 
studying  and  teaching  theology  ;  there  is  a  healthful  and  un- 
healthful  posture  of  mind  to  be  preserved  towards  the  word  of 
God.      And  we  confess,  that  when  we  see  a  system  of  theology 


Finney's  lectures  on   theology.  251 

beginning  with  moral  government,  we  take  it  for  granted 
that  the  Bible  is  to  be  allowed  only  a  very  humble  part  in  its 
construction/ 

There  is  one  other  general  remark  we  would  make  on  the  work 
before  us.  We  object  not  only  to  the  method  adopted,  to  the 
assumption  that  from  a  few  postulates  the  whole  science  of  re- 
ligion can  be  deduced  by  a  logical  process,  but  to  the  mode  in 
which  the  method  has  been  carried  out.  As  all  truth  is  consist- 
ent ;  as  some  moral  and  religious  truths  are  self-evident,  and  as 
all  correct  deductions  from  correct  premises,  must  themselves  be 
correct,  it  is  of  course  conceivable  that  an  d  priori  system  of  mor- 
als and  religion  might  be  constructed,  which,  as  far  as  it  went, 
would  agree  exactly  with  the  infallible  teachings  of  the  Bible. 
But  apart  from  the  almost  insurmountable  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  the  successful  execution  of  such  a  task,  and  the  comparatively 
slight  authority  that  could  be  claimed  for  any  such  production, 
everything  depends  upon  the  manner  in  which  the  plan  is  ex- 
ecuted. Now  we  object  to  Mr.  Finney's  mode  of  procedure  that 
he  adopts  as  first  principles,  the  very  points  in  dispute.  He  pos- 
tulates what  none  but  a  limited  class  of  his  readers  are  prepared 
to  concede.  His  whole  groundwork,  therefore,  is  defective.  He 
has  built  his  tower  on  contested  ground.  As  a  single  example 
of  this  fundamental  logical  error,  we  refer  to  his  confounding 
liberty  and  ability.  In  postulating  the  one,  he  postulates  also 
the  other.  It  is  a  conceded  point  that  man  is  a  free  agent.  The 
author  therefore  is  authorized  to  lay  down  as  one  of  his  axioms 
that  liberty  is  essential  to  moral  agency  ;  but  he  is  not  authorized 
to  assume  as  an  axiom  that  liberty  and  ability  are  identical.  He 
defines  free  will  to  be  "  the  power  to  choose  in  every  instance,  in 
accordance  with  moral  obligation,  or  to  refuse  so  to  choose.  This 
much,"  he  adds,  "  must  be  included  in  free  will,  and  I  am  not 

'  We  were  struck  with  an  amusing  Illustration  of  Mr.  Finney's  reigning  passion, 
in  the  last  number  of  the  Oberlin  Quarterly  Review.  It  seems  a  pliysieian,  Dr.  Jen- 
nings has  written  a  medical  work,  which  he  submitted  to  Mr.  Finney  for  his  inspection. 
The  latter  gentleman  tells  the  Doctor  that  he  has  long  been  convinced  that  there 
must  be  some  d  priori  method  in  medicine ;  some  self-evident  principle,  from  which 
the  whole  science  of  disease  and  cure  may  be  logically  deduced,  and  he  encourages 
his  friend  in  his  attempts  to  discover  and  establish  that  principle.  All  patients  have 
reason  to  rejoice  that  Mr.  Finney  is  not  a  physician.  To  be  doctored  on  a  priori 
principles,  would  bo  as  bad  for  the  body,  as  it  is  for  the  soul  to  be  dosed  with  d  priori 
theology. 


252  Finney's  lectukes   on   theology. 

concerned  to  affirm  anything  more."  P.  32.  "  To  talk  of  inabiKty 
to  obey  moral  law,  is  to  talk  sheer  nonsense."  P.  4.  Mr.  Finney 
knows  very  well  that  he  has  thus  taken  for  granted  what  has 
been  denied  by  nine  tenths  of  all  good  men  since  the  world  be- 
gan, and  is  still  denied  by  no  small  portion  of  them  as  we  verily 
hope  and  believe.  This  is  a  point  that  cannot  be  settled  by  a 
definition  ex  cathedra.  He  is  guilty  of  a  petitio  principii  when 
he  lays  it  down  as  an  axiom  that  liberty  implies  ability  to  obey 
moral  law,  and  consequently  that  responsibility  is  limited  by 
ability.  This  is  one  of  the  assumptions  on  which  his  whole  sys- 
tem depends  ;  it  is  one  of  the  hooks  from  which  is  strung  his  long 
concatenation  of  sequences.  We  deny  the  right  of  Mr.  Finney 
to  assume  this  definition  of  liberty  as  a  "  first  truth  of  reason," 
because  it  lacks  both  the  essential  characteristics  of  such  truths  ; 
it  neither  forces  assent  as  soon  as  intelligibly  stated,  nor  does  it 
constitute  a  part  of  the  instinctive  (even  if  latent)  faith  of  all 
mankind.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  intelligently  denied,  not  only 
by  theorists  and  jihilosophers,  but  by  the  great  mass  of  ordinary 
men.  It  is  one  of  the  most  familiar  facts  of  consciousness,  that 
a  sense  of  obhgation  is  perfectly  consistent  with  a  conviction  of 
entire  inability.  The  evidence  of  this  is  impressed  on  the  de- 
votional language  of  all  churches  and  ages,  the  hymns  and 
prayers  of  all  people  recognize  at  once  their  guilt  and  helpless- 
ness, a  conviction  that  they  ought  and  that  they  cannot,  and  a 
consequent  calling  upon  God  for  help.  It  is  a  dictum  of  phi- 
losophers, not  of  common  people,  "  I  ought,  therefore,  I  can." 
To  which  every  unsophisticated  human  heart,  and  especially 
every  heart  burdened  with  a  sense  of  sin,  replies,  "  I  ought  to  be 
able,  but  I  am  not."  '  Mr.  Finney  would  doubtless  say  to  such 
people,  this  is  "  sheer  nonsense,"  it  is  aU  a  false  philosophy  ;  no 
man  is  bound  to  do  or  to  be  what  is  not  completely,  and  at  all 
times,  in  his  own  power.  This  does  not  alter  the  case.  Men 
still  feel  at  once  their  obligation  and  their  helplessness,  and  call- 
ing them  fools  for  so  doing,  will  not  destroy  their  painful  convic- 
tion of  their  real  condition.  As  the  doctrine,  the  very  opposite 
of  Mr.  Finney's  assumed  axiom,  is  thus  deeply  and  indelibly  im- 
pressed on  the  heart  of  man,  so  it  is  constantly  asserted  or  as- 

'  Kant's  favorite  maxim,  Ich  soil,  also,  kann  ich,  for  which  JuUus  Mueller  would 
substitute,  Ich  soUte  freiUch  konnen,  aber  ich  kann  nicht.  Miiller's  Lehre  von  der 
Siinde,  vol.  ii.,  p.  116. 


Finney's  lectures  on  theology,  253 

sumed  in  Scripture.  The  Bible  nowhere  asserts  the  ability  of 
fallen  man  to  make  himself  holy  ;  it  in  a  multitude  of  places  as- 
serts just  the  reverse,  and  all  the  provisions  and  promises  of 
grace,  and  all  the  prayers  and  thanksgivings  for  holiness,  recorded 
in  the  Scriptures,  take  for  granted  that  men  cannot  make  them- 
selves holy.  This  therefore  has  been  and  is  the  doctrine  of  every 
Christian  church,  under  the  sun,  unless  that  of  Oberlin  be  an 
exception.  There  is  no  confession  of  the  Greek,  Eomish,  Lu- 
theran, or  Keformed  churches,  in  which  this  truth  is  not  openly 
avowed.  It  was,  says  Neander,  the  radical  principle  of  Pelagius's 
system  that  he  assumed  moral  liberty  to  consist  in  the  ability,  at 
any  moment,  to  choose  between  good  and  evil,'  or,  as  Mr.  Finney 
expresses  it,  "  in  the  power  to  choose,  in  every  instance,  in  ac- 
cordance with  moral  law."  It  is  an  undisputed  historical  fact 
that  this  view  of  liberty  has  not  been  adopted  in  the  confession 
of  any  one  denominational  church  in  Christendom,  but  is  ex- 
pressly repudiated  by  them  all.  We  are  not  concerned,  at  pres- 
ent, to  prove  or  disprove  the  correctness  of  this  definition.  Our 
only  object  is  to  show  that  Mr.  Finney  had  no  right  to  assume 
as  an  axiom  or  a  first  truth  of  reason,  a  doctrine  which  nine- 
tenths  of  all  Christians  intelligently  and  constantly  reject.  He 
himself  tells  us  that  "a  first  truth"  is  one  "  universally  and  neces- 
sarily assumed  by  all  moral  agents,  their  speculations  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding."  Now  it  has  rather  too  much  the  ap- 
pearance of  efirontery,  for  any  man  to  assert  (in  reference  to  any 
thing  which  relates  to  the  common  consciousness  of  men),  that 
to  be,  a  truth  universally  and  necessarily  believed  by  all  moral 
agents,  which  the  vast  majority  of  such  agents,  as  intelligent 
and  as  capable  of  interpreting  their  own  consciousness,  as  himself, 
openly  and  constantly  deny.  This  is  only  one  illustration  of  the 
objection  to  Mr.  Finney's  method,  that  he  gratuitously  assumes 
controverted  points  as  first  truths  or  axioms. 

A  second  objection  to  his  mode  of  executing  his  task  is,  that 
he  gives  himself  up  to  the  exclusive  guidance  of  the  understand- 
ing. We  do  not  mean  that  he  neglects  the  Scriptures  or  makes 
them  subordiate  to  reason.  On  that  characteristic  of  his  work 
we  have  already  remarked.  We  now  refer  to  the  fact  that  it  is 
not  the  informed  and  informing  soul  of  man,  which  he  studies, 
and  whence  he  deduces  his  principles  and  conclusions.     He  will 

*  Kirchengeschichte,  B.  ii.,  p.  1259. 


254  Finney's  lectures  on   theology. 

listen  to  nothing  but  the  understanding.  He  spurns  what  he 
calls  the  "  empirical  consciousness,"  and  denies  its  right  to  hear 
any  testimony  in  relation  to  what  is  truth.  It  is  not  easy  in- 
deed to  determine  by  his  definitions,  what  he  means  by  the  in- 
telligence to  which  he  so  constantly  appeals  and  to  which  he 
ascribes  such  supremacy.  He  tells  us  at  times,  that  it  includes 
Reason,  Conscience,  and  Self-consciousness.  Of  Reason,  he  says. 
it  is  the  intuitive  faculty  or  function  of  the  intellect ;  that 
which  gives  us  the  knowledge  of  the  absolute,  the  infinite,  the 
perfect,  the  necessarily  true.  It  postulates  all  the  a  priori  truths 
of  science.  "  Conscience  is  the  faculty  or  function  of  the  Intel- 
ligence that  recognizes  the  conformity  or  disconformity  of  the 
heart  or  life  to  the  moral  law,  as  it  lies  revealed  in  the  reason, 
and  also  awards  praise  to  conformity,  and  blame  to  disconformity 
to  that  law."  "  Consciousness  is  the  faculty  or  function  of  self- 
knowledge.  It  is  the  faculty  that  recognizes  our  own  existence, 
mental  actions  and  states,  together  with  the  attributes  of  liberty 
or  necessity,  belonging  to  those  actions  and  states."  To  com- 
plete the  view  of  his  psychology,  we  must  repeat  his  definition 
of  the  two  other  constituent  faculties  of  our  nature,  viz. :  the 
sensibility  and  wUl.  The  former  "  is  the  faculty  or  susceptibility 
of  feeling.  All  sensation,  deshe,  emotion,  passion,  pain,  pleasure, 
and  in  short  every  kind  and  degree  of  feeling,  as  the  term  is  com- 
monly used,  is  a  phenomenon  of  this  faculty."  The  Will,  as 
before  stated,  is  defined  to  be  the  power  to  choose,  in  every  in- 
stance, in  accordance  with  the  moral  obligation,  or  to  refuse  so 
to  choose.  "  The  will  is  the  voluntary  power.  In  it  resides 
the  power  of  causality.  As  consciousness  gives  the  affirmation 
that  necessity  is  an  attribute  of  the  phenomena  of  the  intellect 
and  the  sensibility,  so  it  just  as  unequivocally  gives  the  affirma- 
tion that  liberty  is  an  attribute  of  the  phenomena  of  the  will." 
"  I  am  as  conscious  of  being  free  in  willing,  as  I  am  of  not  being 
free  or  voluntar}'-  in  my  feelings  and  intuitions." — Pp.  30,  32. 
Here  is  an  analysis  of  the  faculties  of  the  soul  in  which  the  un- 
derstanding finds  no  place.  It  is  not  included  in  the  Intellect, 
for  that  is  said  to  embrace  only  Reason,  Conscience,  and  Con- 
sciousness ;  and  Reason  so  defined  as  to  distinguish  it  from  the 
understanding.  Here  is  Vernunft,  but  where  is  the  Verstand  ? 
The  fact  is  that  Mr.  Finney  has  for  this  once,  and  for  once  only, 
lapsed  into  transcendentalism.     He  has  taken  the  definition  of 


Finney's  lectures  on   theology.  255 

the  Reason  from  Cousin,  or  some  other  expounder  of  the  modern 
philosphy,  without  remembering  that  according  to  that  philoso- 
phy, reason  is  something  very  different  from  the  understanding. 
This  latter  faculty  has  thus  been  dropped  out  of  his  catalogue. 
This,  however,  is  only  a  momentary  weakness.  Mr.  Finney  is 
the  last  man  in  the  world  to  be  reproached  with  the  sin  of  tak- 
ing his  doctrines  at  second  hand  from  any  school  or  individual 
We  do  not  find  in  this  analysis,  however,  what  we  are  searching 
for.  The  reader  of  this  book  perceives,  on  perusing  the  first 
page,  that  he  is  about  to  enter  on  a  long  and  intricate  path.  He 
naturally  wishes  to  know  who  is  to  be  his  guide.  It  is  not  Rea- 
son, as  here  defined  ;  for  that  only  gives  him  the  point  of  de- 
parture, and  tells  him  the  bearing.  Of  course  it  is  neither  the 
susceptibility  nor  the  will.  What  then  is  it  ?  Why,  under  the 
new  name  of  the  Intelligence,  it  is  the  old  faculty,  familiar  to 
all  Englishmen  and  Americans,  as  the  understanding.  Nothing 
more  nor  less.  Not  reason,  in  its  transcendental  sense,  as  the 
faculty  for  the  absolute,  but  the  discursive  understanding.  The 
ordinary  New  England  faculty,  which  calculates,  perceives,  com- 
pares, infers  and  judges.  No  man  can  read  a  dozen  pages  in  any 
part  of  the  book,  without  perceiving  that  it  is  the  product  of  the 
speculative  understanding,  to  the  exclusion,  to  a  most  wonderful 
degree,  of  every  other  faculty.  This  is  its  presiding  genius. 
This  is  the  organ  which  is  "  phrenologically"  developed  most 
disproportionately  in  the  head  of  the  writer,  and  wdiich  gives 
character  to  his  philosophy  and  theology.  Now  we  earnestly 
protest  against  the  competency  of  this  guide.  It  does  not  belong 
to  the  understanding,  as  described  above,  and  as  it  domineers  in 
this  book,  to  speak  with  authority  on  questions  of  religion  and 
morals.  It  is  not  the  informing  faculty  ;  nor  can  it  be  trusted 
as  a  guide.  Let  a  man  attempt  to  write  a  work  on  aesthetics, 
putting  as  Mr.  Finney  docs,  his  mailed  foot  on  the  susceptibilities, 
not  allowing  them  any  voice  in  determining  the  principles  of 
laste,  and  he  will  produce  a  work  which  no  cultivated  man  could 
recognize  as  treating  on  the  subject.  Every  such  man  would 
say,  the  writer  had  purposely  put  out  the  Hght  in  order  to  see 
by  the  sparks  struck  by  his  iron-bound  feet.  In  like  manner  if 
any  man  undertakes  the  task  of  writing  on  morals  and  religion, 
unchecked  and  unguided  by  the  emotional  part  of  our  nature,  by 
the  susceptibilities,  the  "  empirical  consciousness,"  he  will  most 


256  Finney's  lectures  on   theology. 

assuredly  find  the  heart,  conscience,  and  consciousness  of  all  sane 
and  good  men  against  him.  This  task  has  been  attempted  long 
before  Mr.  Finney  was  born,  and  with  much  the  same  results. 
The  understanding,  which  has  neither  heart  nor  conscience,  can 
speak  on  these  subjects  only  as  informed,  and  guided  by  the 
moral  and  religions  susceptibilities,  which  arc  themselves  the 
instinctive  impulses  of  our  higher  nature.  They  belong  to  a  far 
higher  sphere  than  the  speculative  understanding,  to  the  TTvevj.ia 
as  distinguished  from  the  vovg ;  and  are  masters  and  not  slaves. 
The  understanding,  if  divorced  from  the  other  faculties,  may 
demonstrate,  just  as  it  demonstrates  that  there  is  no  external 
world,  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  sin,  or  virtue,  or  good,  or 
justice  ;  what  is  that  to  the  conscience  ?  What  becomes  of  all 
its  syllogisms,  when  the  sceptic  comes  to  die  ?  Are  they  un- 
ravelled, and  answered  by  the  understanding  ?  Or  do  they  drop 
from  its  palsied  hand,  the  moment  conscience  affirms  the  truth  ? 
We  consider  it  as  the  radical,  flital  error  of  the  "  method"  of  this 
book,  that  it  is  a  mere  work  of  the  understanding  :  the  heart, 
the  susceptibilities,  the  conscience,  are  allowed  no  authority  in 
deciding  moral  questions  ;  which  is  as  preposterous  as  it  would 
be  to  write  a  mathematical  treatise  on  poetry.  The  whole  his- 
tory of  the  church  teems  with  illustrations  of  the  fact,  that  when 
men  write  on  morals  without  being  guided  by  the  moral  emotions  ; 
or  on  religion,  uncontrolled  by  right  religious  feeling,  they  are 
capable  of  any  extravagance  of  error.  But  such  men  say,  as 
Mr.  Finney  does  in  a  passage,  already  quoted,  if  they  do  not 
follow  the  intelligence  they  have  nothing  else  to  follow  ;  if 
reason  gives  false  testimony,  or  deceives  them,  they  can  never 
know  truth  from  error.  This  is  all  a  mistake.  It  is  not  reason 
deceiving  them,  but  the  understanding  making  fools  of  them,  as 
the  apostle  says,  (jxiaKovreg  elvai  oo<pol  ifj-upavdrjaav.  This  is  no 
disparagement  of  the  understanding.  It  is  only  saying  that  it  is 
of  no  authority  out  of  its  legitimate  sphere.  It  receives  and  gives 
light.  It  guides  and  is  guided.  It  cannot  be  divorced  from  the 
other  faculties,  and  act  alone,  and  give  the  law  to  them,  as  a 
separate  power.  Conscience  is  intelligent,  feeling  is  intelligent, 
the  soul  is  an  intelHgent  and  feeling  agent,  and  not  like  a  three- 
fold cord,  whose  strands  can  be  untwisted  and  taken  apart.  It 
ifl  one  indivisible  substance,  whose  activity  is  manifested  under 
various  forms,  but  not  through  faculties  as  distinct  from  each 


finnet's  lectures  on  theology,  257 

other  as  the  organ  of  sight  is  from  that  of  hearing.  Hence  in- 
telligence may  be  predicated  of  the  susceptibilities,  and  moral 
character  of  the  acts  of  the  intelligence.  No  emotion,  or  mental 
passion,  or  feeling,  is  a  mere  phenomenon  of  the  susceptibility.  Is 
there  no  difference  betwen  feeling  in  a  brute,  and  feeling  in  a 
man  .^  Nothing  but  error  can  result  from  this  absolute  divorce 
of  one  faculty  of  the  soul  from  the  others  ;  and  especially  from 
setting  the  intelligence  in  a  state. of  perfect  isolation,  and  then 
making  it,  in  that  state,  the  law-giver  of  man. 

If  Mr.  Finney  will  take  the  trouble  to  look  into  the  books  of 
casuistry  common  among  Romanists,  or  into  works  on  what  they 
call  Moral  Theology,  he  will  be  convinced  that  the  most  demor- 
alizing of  all  studies  is  the  study  of  morals,  under  the  exclusive 
guidance  of  the  understanding.  The  Eomish  practice  of  confes- 
sion has  created  a  demand  for  the  consideration  of  all  possible 
cases  of  conscience  ;  and  has  led  to  the  subjection  of  the  soul  to 
the  scalpel  of  the  moral  anatomist,  laying  open  to  the  cold  eye 
of  the  "  Intelligence"  all  the  curious  net-work  of  the  feelings  and 
emotions,  to  be  judged  not  by  their  nature,  but  their  relations. 
The  body,  when  dead,  may  stand  this  ;  the  living  soul  cannot. 
And  hence  no  set  of  men  have  the  moral  sense  so  perverted  as 
these  same  casuists.  Jesuitism,  theoretical  and  practical,  is  the 
product  of  this  method  of  making  the  soul  a  mere  anatomical 
subject  for  the  understanding  ;  and  therefore  stands  as  a  lesson 
and  a  warning. 

Apart  then  from  the  radical  error  of  making  theology  a  science 
to  be  deduced  from  certain  primary  principles,  or  first  truths,  we 
object  to  Mr.  Finney's  work  that  it  assumes  as  axioms  contested 
points  of  doctrine  ;  and  that  it  makes  the  mere  understanding,  as 
divorced  from  the  other  faculties,  the  law-giver  and  judge  on  aU 
questions  of  moral  and  religious  truth.  The  result  is  that  he 
has  produced  a  work,  which  though  it  exhibits  singular  ability 
for  analysis  and  deduction,  is  false  as  to  its  principles  and  at 
variance  with  Scripture,  experience,  and  the  common  conscious- 
ness of  men.  We  feel  on  reading  it  just  as  a  man  feels  who  re- 
signs himself  to  the  arguments  of  an  idealist  who  leads  him  step 
by  step  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  no  external  world,  that  all 
things  are  nothing.  Such  a  reader  sees  no  flaw  in  the  argument 
but  feels  no  force  in  the  conclusion.  He  knows  it  to  be  false, 
just  as  much  after  it  has  been  proved  to  be  true,  as  he  did  be- 

17 


258    finney's  lectures  on  theology. 

fore.  There  is  this  difference  between  the  cases  however.  We 
are  disjDOsed  to  smile  at  the  world  of  phantasms  to  which  ideal- 
ism leads  us  ;  but  where  the  conclusions  arrived  at  are  such  as 
are  urged  in  this  book,  we  feel  that  all  true  religion,  the  very  es- 
sence and  nature  of  piety,  are  at  stake.  It  is  not  a  question, 
whether  the  world  is  real  or  phenomenal ;  but  whether  God  or 
being  is  to  be  worshipped ;  whether  sin  is  sin,  and  holiness  is  a 
good  ;  whether  religion  consists  in  loving  God  for  his  divine  ex- 
cellence, or  in  purposing  the  happiness  of  moral  agents  ;  whether 
men  are  responsible  for  their  feeling  or  only  for  their  intentions  ; 
whether  there  is  any  other  regeneration  than  a  change  of  pur- 
pose, or  any  possibility  of  salvation  for  the  imperfectly  sanctified. 
These  and  similar  questions  obviously  concern  the  very  vitals  of 
Christianity,  and  if  Mr.  Finney  is  right,  it  is  high  time  the 
church  knew  that  religion  is  something  essentially  diiferent  from 
what  has  been  commonly  supposed. 

As  it  would  be  impossible  to  discuss  the  various  questions  pre- 
sented in  such  a  work  as  this,  within  the  compass  of  a  review,  we 
propose  to  do  little  more  than  to  state  the  principles  which  Mr. 
Finney  assumes,  and  show  that  they  legitimately  lead  to  his  con- 
clusions. In  other  words,  we  wish  to  show  that  his  conclusions 
are  the  best  refutation  of  his  premises.  "  Our  task  would  be  much 
easier  than  it  is,  if  there  were  any  one  radical  principle  to  which 
his  several  axioms  could  be  reduced,  and  from  w^iich  the  whole 
system  could  be  evolved,  but  this  is  not  the  case.  No  one  prin- 
ciple includes  all  the  others,  nor  leads  to  all  the  conclusions  here 
deduced  ;  nor  do  the  conclusions  admit  of  being  classed,  and 
some  referred  to  one  principle  and  some  to  another,  because  the 
same  conclusions  often  follow  with  equal  certainty  from  different 
premises.  We  despair,  therefore,  of  giving  anything  like  unity  to 
our  exhibition  of  Mr.  Finney's  system,  but  we  shall  try  not  to  do 
him  injustice.  We  regard  him  as  a  most  important  laborer  in 
the  cause  of  truth.  Principles  which  have  been  long  current  in 
this  country,  and  which  multitudes  hold  without  seeing  half 
their  consequences,  he  has  had  the  strength  of  intellect  and  will, 
to  trace  out  to  their  legitimate  conclusions,  and  has  thus  shown 
the  borderers  that  there  is  no  neutral  ground  ;  that  they  must 
either  go  forward  to  Oberlin  or  back  to  the  common  faith  of 
Protestants. 

We  are  not  sure  that  all  Mr.  Finney's  doctrines  may  not  be 


Finney's  lectuees  on  theology.    259 

traced  to  two  fundamental  principles,  viz.:  that  obligation  is 
limited  by  ability  ;  and  that  satisfaction,  happiness,  blessedness, 
is  the  only  ultimate  good,  the  only  thing  intrinsically  valuable. 
As  to  the  former  of  these  principles,  his  doctrine  is  that  free  will 
is  one  of  the  essential  conditions  of  moral  agency,  and  of  course 
of  moral  obligation.  By  free  wiR  is  meant  "  the  power  of  choosing 
or  refusing  to  choose  in  compliance  with  moral  obligation  in 
every  instance.  Free-will  implies  the  power  of  originating  and 
deciding  our  own  choices  and  of  exercising  our  own  sovereignty 
in  every  instance  of  choice  upon  moral  questions  ;  of  deciding  or 
choosing  in  conformity  with  duty  or  otherwise  in  all  cases  of 
moral  obligation.  That  man  cannot  be  under  a  moral  obligation 
to  perform  an  absolute  impossibility  is  a  first  truth  of  reason. 
But  man's  causality,  his  whole  power  to  perform  or  do  anything 
lies  in  his  will.  If  he  cannot  will,  he  can  do  nothing.  His  whole 
liberty  or  freedom  must  consist  in  his  j)ower  to  will.  His  out- 
ward actions  and  his  mental  states  are  connected  with  the  actions 
of  his  will  by  a  law  of  necessity.  If  I  will  to  move  my  muscles, 
they  must  move,  unless  there  be  a  paralysis  of  the  nerves  of  vol- 
untary motion,  or  unless  some  resistance  be  opposed  which  over- 
comes the  power  of  my  volitions.  The  sequences  of  choice  or 
volition  are  always  under  the  law  of  necessity,  and  unless  the 
will  is  free,  man  has  no  freedom.  And  if  he  has  no  freedom,  he 
is  not  a  moral  agent,  that  is,  he  is  incapable  of  moral  action  and 
also  of  moral  character.  Free-will  then,  in  the  above  defined 
sense,  must  be  a  condition  of  moral  agency  and  of  course  of 
moral  obligation."  P.  26, 

"  It  should  be  observed  that  all  acts  of  the  will  consist  in 
choices  or  willings.  These  actions  are  generally  regarded  as  con- 
sisting in  choice  and  volition.  By  choice  is  intended  the  selec- 
tion or  choice  of  an  end.  By  volition  is  intended  the  executive 
efforts  of  the  will  to  secure  the  end  intended.  *  *  '•'"  All 
intelligent  choices  or  actions  of  the  will,  must  consist  either  in 
the  choice  of  an  end  or  of  means  to  secure  that'  end.  To  deny 
this  is  the  same  as  to  deny  that  there  is  any  object  of  choice.  If 
the  wiU  acts  at  all,  it  wills,  chooses  If  it  chooses,  it  chooses 
something — there  is  an  object  of  choice.  In  other  words,  it 
chooses  something  for  some  reason,  and  that  reason  is  truly  the 
object  of  choice.  Or  at  least,  the  fundamental  reason  for  choos- 
ing a  thing,  is  the  object  chosen."  P.  44. 


260      FINNEY  S  LECTURES  ON  THEOLOGY. 

"  Consciousness  of  affirming  the  freedom  of  the  mil,  that  is, 
of  power  to  will  in  accordance  with  moral  obligation,  or  to  refuse 
thus  to  will  is  a  necessary  condition  of  the  affirmation  of  moral 
obhgation.  For  example  :  no  man  affirms,  or  can  affirm  his 
moral  obligation  to  undo  the  acts  of  his  past  life,  and  to  live  his 
life  over  again.  He  cannot  affirm  himself  to  be  under  this  obli- 
gation, simply  because  he  cannot  but  affirm  the  impossibility  of 
it.  He  can  affirm,  and  indeed  cannot  but  affirm  his  obligation 
to  repent  and  obey  God  for  the  future,  because  he  is  conscious  of 
affirming  his  ability  to  do  this.  Consciousness  of  the  ability  to 
comply  with  any  requisition,  is  a  necessary  condition  of  the  af- 
firmation of  obligation  to  comply  with  that  requisition.  Then 
no  moral  agent  can  affirm  himself  to  be  under  obligation  to  per- 
form an  impossibility."  P.  33. 

Practicability  is  therefore  an  attribute  of  moral  law.  "  That 
which  the  precept  demands,  must  be  possible  to  the  subject. 
*  »  «•  ipQ  ^f^2]j  Qf  inability  to  obey  moral  law  is  to  talk  sheer 
nonsense,"  P.  4. 

"  By  what  authority  do  you  affirm,  that  God  requires  any 
more  of  any  moral  agent,  and  of  man  in  his  present  condition, 
than  he  is  able  to  perform."  P.  8,  In  the  commands  to  love 
God  with  all  our  strength,  and  our  neighbor  as  ourselves,  it  is 
said,  God  "  completely  levels  his  claims,  by  the  very  wording  of 
these  commandments  to  the  present  capacity  of  every  human 
being,  however  young  or  old,  however  maimed,  debilitated,  or 
idiotic."  P.  8.  "If  a  man  has  willingly  remained  in  ignorance 
of  G  od,  is  his  ignorance  a  moral  or  natural  inability  ?  If  it  is  a 
moral  inability,  he  can  instantly  overcome  it,  by  the  right  ex- 
ercise of  his  own  will.  And  nothing  can  be  a  moral  inability 
that  cannot  be  instantaneously  removed  by  our  own  volition." 
P.  9. 

"  The  will  is  always  free  to  choose  in  opposition  to  desire. 
This  every  moral  agent  is  as  conscious  of  as  of  his  own  existence. 
The  desire  is  not  free,  but  the  choice  to  gratify  it  is  and  must  be 
free."  "  Desire  is  constitutional.  It  is  a  phenomenon  of  the 
sensibility.  It  is  a  purely  involuntary  state  of  the  mind,  and  can 
in  itself  produce  no  action,  and  can  in  itself  have  no  moral  char- 
acter." Pp.  300,  301. 

These  extracts  present  with  sufficient  clearness  Mr.  Finney's 
doctrine  on  this  point.     With  him  it  is  a  "  first  truth"  or  axiom 


Finney's  lectures  on  theology.         261 

that  freedom  of  the  will  is  essential  to  moral  agency,  moral  obH- 
gation,  and  moral  character  ;  that  free-will  consists  in  the  power 
to  choose,  in  every  instance,  in  conformity  with  moral  obligation, 
and  consequently  that  no  man  can  be  responsible  for  any  thing 
but  the  acts  of  his  will,  or  what  is  under  the  immediate  control 
of  the  will.  Before  proceeding  to  the  second  general  principle  on 
which  his  system  rests,  it  may  be  proper  to  remark,  in  reference 
to  the  extracts  given  above  and  the  doctrine  they  inculcate.  1. 
That  Mr.  Finney  obviously  uses  the  word  will,  in  its  strict  and 
limited  sense.  Every  one  is  aware  that  the  word  is  often  used 
for  everything  in  the  mind  not  included  under  the  category  of 
the  understanding.  In  this  sense  all  mental  affections,  such  as 
being  pleased  or  displeased,  liking  and  dislikiag,  preferring,  and 
so  on,  are  acts  of  the  will.  In  its  strict  and  proper  sense,  it 
is  the  power  of  self-determination,  the  faculty  by  which  we  de- 
cide our  own  acts.  This  is  the  sense  in  which  the  word  is  uni- 
formly and  correctly  used  in  the  work  before  us. .  2.  Mr.  Finney 
is  further  correct  in  confining  causality  to  the  will,  i.  e.,  in  saying 
that  our  ability  extends  no  further  thau  to  voluntary  acts.  We 
have  no  direct  control  over  our  mental  states  beyond  the  sphere 
of  the  will.  We  can  decide  on  our  bodily  acts  and  on  the  course 
of  our  thoughts,  but  we  cannot  govern  our  emotions  and  aJBfec- 
tions  by  direct  acts  of  volitions.  We  cannot  feel  as  we  will.  3. 
In  confounding  liberty  and  ability,  or  in  asserting  their  identity, 
Mr.  Finney,  as  remarked  on  the  preceding  page,  passes  beyond 
the  limits  of  first  truths,  and  asserts  that  to  be  an  axiom  which 
the  common  consciousness  of  men  denies  to  be  a  truth.  4.  The 
fallacy  of  which  he  is  guilty  is  very  obvious.  He  transfers  a 
maxim  which  is  an  axiom  in  one  department,  to  another  in  which 
it  has  no  legitimate  force.  It  is  a  first  truth  that  a  man  without 
eyes  cannot  be  under  an  obligation  to  see,  or  a  man  without  ears 
to  hear.  No  blind  man  ever  felt  remorse  for  not  seeing,  nor  any 
deaf  man  for  not  hearing.  Within  the  sphere  therefore  of  phys- 
ical impossibilities,  the  maxim  that  obligation  is  limited  by  abih- 
ity,  is  undoubtedly  true.  But  it  is  no  less  obviously  true  that  an 
inability  which  has  its  origin  in  sin,  which  consists  in  what  is 
sinful,  and  relates  to  moral  action,  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
continued  obligation.  Such  is  the.  instinctive  judgment  of  men, 
such  is  the  testimony  of  conscience,  such  the  plain  doctrine  of 
the  Bible,  which  no  vehemence  or  frequency  of  contradiction  or 


262  Finney's  lectures   on  theology. 

denial,  has  ever  been  able  to  convince  sinful  men  is  not  true. 
They  would  often  give  the  world  to  be  assured  they  were  not 
bound  to  be  better  than  an  act  of  the  will  would  make  them. 

The  second  radical  principle  of  Mr,  Finney's  system  is,  That 
enjoyment,  happiness,  blessedness  is  the  only  intrinsic  good, 
which  is  to  be  chosen  for  its  own  sake.  This  is  the  only  absolute 
ultimate  good  :  other  things  are  only  relatively  good  as  means  to 
this  end.  Hence  "  the  highest  good  of  being  as  such"  is  the  ulti- 
mate end  to  be  chosen.  As  this  doctrine  is  asserted  or  implied 
on  every  page  of  the  book,  we  hardly  know  what  particular  as- 
sertion to  quote.  The  following  passages  must  suffice  as  a  state- 
ment of  the  author's  doctrine,  "  The  well-being  of  God  and  the 
universe  is  the  absolute  and  ultimate  good,  and  therefore  it 
should  be  chosen  by  every  moral  agent."  "  It  is  a  first  truth  of 
reason,  that  whatever  is  intrinsically  valuable  should  be  chosen 
for  that  reason  or  as  an  end.  It  is  and  must  be  a  first  truth  of 
reason,  that  whatever  is  intrinsically  and  infinitely  valuable 
ought  to  be  chosen  as  the  ultimate  end  of  existence  by  every 
moral  agent."  "  The  moral  law  then  must  require  moral  agents 
to  will  good,  or  that  which  is  intrinsically  valuable  to  God  and 
the  universe  of  sentient  existences  for  its  own  sake  or  as  an  ulti- 
mate end."  P.  43.  "  Good  may  be  natural  or  moral.  Natural 
good  is  synonymous  with  valuable.  Moral  good  is  synonymous 
with  virtue,"  P.  45,  "  The  law  proposes  to  secure  moral  worth, 
not  as  an  ultimate  end,  not  as  the  ultimate  and  absolute  good  of 
the  subject,  but  as  the  condition  of  his  being  rewarded  with  ab- 
solute good.  The  law-giver  and  the  law  propose  ultimate  and 
perfect  satisfaction  and  blessedness  as  a  result  of  virtue  and  of 
moral  worth.  This  result  must  be  the  ultimate  and  absolute 
good."  May  it  not  with  just  as  much  reason  be  said  :  a  teacher 
proposes  a  good  medal  as  the  reward  of  proficiency  in  scholar- 
ship, therefore,  the  attainment  of  a  good  medal  is  the  ultimate 
end  of  education  ?  Our  author,  however,  proceeds  :  "  The  reason 
why  virtue  and  moral  excellence  or  worth  has  been  supposed  to  be 
a  good  in  themselves,  and  intrinsically  and  absolutely  valuable, 
is,  that  the  mind  necessarily  regards  them  with  satisfaction,"  P, 
47,  "  If  neither  the  subject  of  moral  excellence  or  worth  nor 
any  one  else  experienced  any  satisfaction  in  contemplating  it — 
if  it  did  not  meet  a  demand  of  our  being  or  of  any  being  so  as  to 
afford  the  least  satisfaction  to  any  sentient  existence,  to  whom 


FINNETS  LECTURES  ON  THEOLOGY.      263 

or  to  what  would  it  be  a  good  ?      *     *      *     We  are  apt  to  say 
it  is  an  ultimate  good ;  but  it  is  only  a  relative  good.    It  meets  a 
demand  of  our  being  and  thus  produces  satisfaction.     This  sat- 
isfaction is  the  ultimate  good  of  being."  P.  48.     "  This  satisfac- 
tion is  a  good  in  itself    But  that  which  produces  this  satisfaction, 
is  in  no  proper  sense  a  good  in  itself"     "  It  is  absurd  to  make 
that  an  ultimate  good  [viz.:  virtue]  and  to  affirm  that  to  be  in- 
trinsically and  ultimately  valuable,  whose  whole  value  consists  in 
its  relations  to  an  ultimate  good  "  P.  49.     "  In  what  sense  of 
the  term  good,  can  it  be  ultimate  .?     Not  in  the  sense  of  moral 
good  or  virtue.     This  has  been  so  often  shown  that  it  needs  not 
be  repeated  here.     *     *     "••'     Good  can  be  ultimate,  only  in  the 
sense  of  natural  and  absolute,  that  is,  that  only  can  be  an  ulti- 
mate good,  which  is  naturally  and  intrinsically  valuable  to  being. 
^'     *     *     I  come  now  to  state  the  point  upon  which  issue  is 
taken,  to  wit :  That  enjoyment,  blessedness,  or  mental  satisfac- 
tion is  the  only  ultimate  good."  P.  120.     "  Of  what  value  is  the 
true,  the  right,  the  just,  &c.,  aside  from  the  pleasure  or  mental 
satisfaction  resulting  from  them  to  sentient  existences  ?"  P.  122. 
"  The  Bible  knows  but  one  ultimate  good.     This,  as  has  been 
said,  the  moral  law  has  forever  settled.     The  highest  well-being 
of  God,  apd  the  universe  is  the  only  end  required  by  the  law. 
«■      -:;:-     -:;:•      ipj^e  law  and  the  gosj)el  propose  the  good  of  being 
only  as  the  end  of  virtuous  intention.     '  Thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God  and  thy  neighbor  as  thyself  !'    Here  is  the  whole 
duty  of  man.     But  here  is  nothing  of  choosing,  willing,  loving, 
truth,  justice,  right,  utility,  or  beauty,  as  an  ultimate  end  for 
their   own   sakes.     The  fact  is,  there  are  innumerable  relative 
goods,  or  conditions,  or  means  of  enjoyment,  but  only  an  ulti- 
mate good.     Disinterested  benevolence  to  God  and  man  is  the 
whole  of  virtue,  and  every  modification  of  love  resolves  itself  in 
the  last  analysis  into  this.     If  this  is  so,  well-being  in  the  sense 
of  enjoyment  must  be  the  only  ultimate  good."  P.  123.     "  The 
idea  of  good,  or  of  the  valuable,  must  exist  before  virtue  can  ex- 
ist.    It  is  and  must  be  the  development  of  the  idea  of  the  valua- 
ble, that  develops  the  idea  of  moral  obligation,  of  right  and 
wrong,  and  consequently,  that  makes  virtue  possible.    The  mind 
must  perceive  an  object  of  choice,  that  is,  regard  it  as  intrin- 
sically valuable,  before  it  can  have  the  idea  of  moral  obligation 
to  choose  it  as  an  end.     That  object  of  choice  cannot  be  virtue 


264      FINNEY  S  LECTURES  ON  THEOLOGY. 

or  moral  beauty,  for  this  would  be  to  have  the  idea  of  virtue  or 
moral  beauty  before  the  idea  of  moral  obhgation,  or  right  or 
wrong.  This  were  a  contradiction."  P.  125.  That  is,  virtue  con- 
sists in  the  choice  of  what  is  intrinsically  valuable  ;  hence  the 
idea  of  the  valuable  must  exist  before  virtue  ;  hence  virtue  can- 
not be  the  thing  chosen,  but  the  intrinsically  valuable,  which  it 
is  virtue  to  choose.  Therefore  enjoyment  and  not  virtue  must 
be  the  ultimate  object  of  choice. 

The  theory,  which  maintains  that  there  are  several  distinct 
grounds  of  moral  obligation,  that  not  only  the  good  of  being  in 
general,  but  truth,  justice,  moral  excellence,  are  each  to  be 
chosen  for  its  own  sake,  he  says,  "Virtually  flatly  contradicts  the 
law  of  God  and  the  repeated  declaration  that  love  to  God  and 
our  neighbor  is  the  whole  of  virtue.  AVhat,  does  God  say  that 
all  law  is  fulfilled  in  one  word.  Love,  that  is,  love  to  God  and  our 
neighbor  ;  and  shall  a  Christian  philosopher  overlook  this,  and 
insist  that  we  ought  to  love  not  only  God  and  our  neighbor,  but 
to  will  the  right  and  the  true,  and  the  just  and  the  beautiful,  and 
multitudes  of  such  like  things  for  their  own  sakes  ?  The  law  of 
God  makes  and  knows  only  one  ultimate  end,  and  shall  this 
philosophy  be  allowed  to  confuse  us  by  teaching  that  there  are 
many  ultimate  ends,  that  we  ought  to  will  each  for  its  own  sake  ? 
Nay  verily."  P.  147.  "  I  might  here  insist  upon  the  intrinsic 
absurdity  of  regarding  right,  justice,  ^drtue,  the  beautiful  as  the 
ultimate  good,  instead  of  mental  satisfaction  or  enjoyment ;  but 
I  waive  this  point  at  present,  and  observe  that  either  this  theory 
resolves  itself  into  the  true  one,  namely,  that  the  valuable  to  be- 
ing, in  whatsoever  that  value  be  found,  is  the  sole  foundation  of 
moral  obligation,  or  it  is  pernicious  eri'or.  If  it  be  not  the  true 
theory,  it  does  not  and  cannot  teach  aught  but  error  on  the  sub- 
ject of  moral  law,  moral  obligation,  and  of  course  of  morals  and 
religion.  It  is  either  then,  confusion  and  nonsense,  or  it  resolves 
itself  into  the  true  theory  just  stated."  P.  148. 

From  all  this  it  is  abundantly  evident  that  the  writer  teaches, 
1.  That  enjoyment,  satisfaction,  happiness,  is  the  only  intrinsic 
good  to  be  chosea  for  its  own  sake.  2.  That  moral  excellence  is 
only  a  relative  good  having  no  value  but  as  the  means  or  condi- 
tion of  enjoyment. 

On  this  doctrine  we  remark,  1.  That  it  is  readily  admitted 
that  happiness  is  a  good.     2.  That  it  is  consequently  obligatory 


Finney's  lectures  on  theology.  265 

on  all  moral  agents  to  endeavor  to  promote  it.     3,  That  the 
highest  happiness  of  the  universe,  being  an  unspeakably  exalted, 
and  important  end,  to  make  its  attainment  the  object  of  life  is  a 
noble  principle  of  action.     4.  Consequently  this  theory  of  moral 
obligation  is  inconceivably  more  elevated  than  that  which  makes 
self-love  the  ultimate  principle  of  action,  and  our  own  happiness 
the  highest  object  of  pursuit.     5.  That  the  error  of  the  theory  is 
making  enjoyment  the  highest  and  the   only  intrinsic  or  real 
good.     6.  That  this  error  derives  no  countenance  from  the  fact 
that  the  Bible  represents  love  to  God  and  love  to  our  neighbor 
as  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.     To  derive  any  argument  from  this 
source  Mr.  Finney  must  first  take  the  truth  of  his  theory  for 
granted.     To  prove  that  all  love  is  benevolence,  it  must  be  as- 
sumed that  happiness  is  the  only  good.     If  love  is  vastly  more 
than  benevolence,  if  a  disposition  to  jDromote  happiness  is  only 
one  and  that  one  of  the  lowest  forms  of  that  comprehensive  ex- 
cellence which  the  Scriptures  call  love,  his  argument  is  worth 
nothing.     In  accordance  with  that  meaning  of  the  term,  which 
imiversal  usage  has  given  it,  any  out-going  of  the  soul,  whether 
under  the  form  of  desire,  affection,  complacency,  reverence,  de- 
light towards  an  appropriate  object,  is  in  the  Bible  called  love. 
To  squeeze  all  this  down,  and  wire-draw  it  through  one  pin-hole, 
is  as  impossible  as  to  change  the  nature  of  the  human  soul. 
Every  man,  not  a  slave  to  some  barren  theory  of  the  under- 
standing, knows  that  love  to  God  is  not  benevolence  ;  that  it  is 
approbation,  complacency,  delight  in  his  moral  excellence,  rever- 
ence, gratitude,  devotion.     The  reason  then  why  the  Scriptures 
represent  love  as  the  fulfilling  of  the  law,  is  twofold.     First,  be- 
cause love  to  an  infinitely  perfect  Being,  involves  in  it  approba- 
tion of  all  conceivable  forms  of  moral  excellence,  and  consequent 
congeniality  of  soul  with  it  under  all  those  forms.   He  who  really 
loves  a  God  of  truth,  justice,  purity,  mercy,  and  benevolence,  is 
himself  truthful,  just,  holy,  merciful,  and  kind.     Secondly,  be- 
cause love  to  God  and  man  will  secure  all  obedience  to  the  pre- 
cepts of  the  law.     We  may  admit,  therefore,  that  love  is  the 
fulfilling  of  the  law,  without  being  sophisticated  into  believing 
or  rather  saying,  that  faith  is  love,  justice  is  love,  patience  love, 
humility  love.     Nothing  is  more  foreign  to  the  whole  character 
of  the  Bible,  than  to  make  it  speak  the  language  of  a  theory.    It 
speaks  the  language  of  the  common  consciousness  of  men,  expect- 


266    Finney's  lectuees  on  theology. 

ing  to  be  understood  as  men  would  understand  each  other.  Who 
can  beheve  that  any  man  undisciplined  by  metaphysics  would 
believe  that  faith  or  humility  is  benevolence,  the  love  of  being  as 
such,  willing  happiness  for  its  own  sake  ?  We  promised,  how- 
ever, not  to  discuss  Mr.  Finney's  principles.  We  propose  to 
rely  on  the  reductio  ad  absurdum,  and  make  his  doctrines  the 
refutation  of  his  principles. 

The  two  princijiles  to  which  all  the  important  doctrines  con- 
tained in  this  work,  may  be  traced,  are.  First,  that  obligation  is 
limited  by  ability  ;  and  secondly,  that  enjoyment,  satisfaction,  or 
happiness  is  the  only  ultimate  good,  which  is  to  be  chosen  for  its 
own  sake. 

If  these  principles  are  correct,  then  it  follows,  Fikst,  that 
moral  obligation,  or  the  demands  of  the  moral  law  can  relate  to 
nothing  but  intention,  or  the  choice  of  an  ultimate  end.  If  that 
is  right,  all  is  right.  The  law  can  demand  nothing  more.  That 
this  is  a  fair  sequence  from  the  above  principles  is  plain,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  following  statement  of  the  case.  The  law  can  de- 
mand nothing  but  what  is  within  the  power  of  a  moral  agent. 
The  power  of  such  an  agent  extends  no  further  than  to  the  acts 
of  the  will.  All  the  acts  of  the  will  are  either  choices  of  an  end, 
or  volitions  designed  to  attain  that  end  ;  the  latter  of  course 
having  no  moral  character  except  as  they  derive  it  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  end  in  view  of  the  mind.  Therefore  all  moral  charac- 
ter attaches  properly  to  the  intention  or  ultimate  choice  which 
the  agent  forms.  » 

This  is  one  of  the  conclusions  which  Mr.  Finney  draws  from 
the  principles  above  stated,  and  which  is  perhaps  more  frequently 
and  confidently  asserted  than  any  other  in  his  book.  "It  is  gen- 
erally agi'eed  that  moral  obligation  respects  strictly  only  the 
ultimate  intention  or  choice  of  an  end  for  its  own  sake."  P.  26. 
"  I  have  said  that  moral  obligation  respects  the  ultimate  inten- 
tion only.  I  am  now  prepared  to  say  still  further  that  this  is  a 
first  truth  of  reason."  P.  36.  "  All  the  law  is  fulfilled  in  one 
word,  love.  Now  this  cannot  be  true  if  the  spiiit  of  the  law  does 
not  respect  intentions  only.  If  it  extends  directly  to  thoughts, 
emotions,  and  outward  actions,  it  cannot  be  truly  said  that  love 
is  the  fulfilhng  of  the  law.  This  love  must  be  good  will,  for 
how  could  involuntary  love  be  obligatory.?"  P.  31.  "  Let  it  be 
remembered  that  moral  obligation  respects  the  choice  of  an  ulti- 


Finney's  lectures  on  theology.  267 

mate  end."  P.  90.  "  Eight  and  wrong  respect  ultimate  inten- 
tion only  and  are  always  the  same.  Eight  can  be  predicated  only 
of  good  will,  and  wrong  only  of  selfishness.  '•■"  *  *  It  is  right 
for  him  to  intend  the  highest  good  of  being  as  an  end.  If  he 
honestly  does  this,  he  cannot,  doing  this,  mistake  his  duty,  for  in 
doing  this  he  really  performs  his  whole  duty."  P.  149.  "  Moral 
character  belongs  solely  to  the  ultimate  intention  of  the  mind,  or 
to  choice,  as  distinguished  from  volitions."  P.  157.     "  Let  it  be 

BOENE  IN  MIND  THAT  IF  MORAL  OBLIGATION  RESPECTS  STRICTLY 
THE  ULTIMATE  INTENTION  ONLY,  IT  FOLLOWS  THAT  ULTIMATE  IN- 
TENTION ALONE  IS  RIGHT  OR  WRONG  IN  ITSELF,  AND  ALL  OTHER 
THINGS    ARE   RIGHT    OR    WRONG   AS    THEY    PROCEED  FROM  A  RIGHT 

OR  WRONG  ULTIMATE  INTENTION."  P.  134.  How  Strangely  does 
this  sound  like  the  doctrine,  the  end  sanctifies  the  means  !  Every 
thing  depends  on  the  intention  ;  if  that  is  right,  all  is  right.  We 
fear  Mr.  Finney  has  not  recently  read  Pascal's  Provincial  Let- 
ters :  a  better  book  for  distribution  at  Oberlin,  we  should  be  at  a 
loss  to  select.  When  Pascal  innocently  begs  his  instructor  in 
the  mysteries  of  the  new  morahty  to  explain  to  him  how  it  was 
possible  to  reconcile  with  the  gospel,  many  things  which  the 
Jesuits  allowed,  the  venerable  father  answered  :  "  '  Understand 
then  that  this  wonderful  principle  consists  in  directing  the  inten- 
tion, the  importance  of  which  in  our  system  of  morality,  is  such 
that  I  should  almost  venture  to  compare  it  with  the  doctrine  of 
probability.  You  have  already  in  passing  seen  some  features  of 
it,  in  a  few  of  the  maxims  already  mentioned  ;  for  when  I  showed 
you  how  servants  might,  with  a  safe  conscience,  manage  certain 
troublesome  messages,  did  you  not  observe  that  it  was  simply 
taking  off  the  intention  from  the  sin  itself,  and  fixing  it  on  the 
advantage  to  be  gained  ?  This  is  what  we  term  directing  the 
intention.  You  saw,  at  the  same  time,  that  those  who  gave 
money  to  obtain  benefices,  would  be  really  guilty  of  simony, 
without  giving  some  such  turn  to  the  transaction.  But,  that 
you  may  judge  of  other  cases,  let  me  now  exhibit  this  grand 
expedient  in  all  its  glory,  in  reference  to  the  subject  of  murder 
which  it  justifies  in  a  thousand  cases.'  '  I  already  perceive,' 
replied  Pascal,  '  that  in  this  way,  one  may  do  anything  without 
exception.'  'You  always  go  from  one  extreme  to  another,'  re- 
turned the  father,  'pray  stop  your  impetuosity.  To  convince 
you  that  we  do  not  permit  everything,  take  this  as  a  proof,  that 


268  Finney's  lectures  on  theology. 

we  never  suffer  the  formal  intention  of  sinning  for  the  sake  of 
sinning,  and  whoever  persists  in  having  no  other  design  in  his 
wickedness  than  wickedness  itself,  we  instantly  discard.  *  *  * 
When  we  cannot  prevent  the  action,  we  at  least  aim  to  purify 
the  intention.  "•••■  *  *  Do  you  understand  me  now  ?'  '  0 
yes,  perfectly  well,'  says  Pascal,  '  you  allow  men  the  external 
material  action,  and  give  to  God  the  internal  spiritual  inten- 
tion ;  and  by  this  equitable  division  you  aim  to  ha,rmonize 
divine  and  human  laws.'  "  To  prove  that  he  correctly  stated  the 
principles  of  his  society  the  father  appeals  first  to  Eeginal- 
dus,  who  says  :  "  A  warrior  may  instantly  pursue  a  wounded 
enemy  not  indeed  with  the  intention  of  rendering  evil  for  evil, 
but  to  maintain  his  own  honor."  This  is  not  exactly  the  direc- 
tion of  the  intention  Mr.  Finney  would  prescribe,  but  we  are 
only  illustrating  the  principle.  Again,  Lessius  says  :  "  He  who 
receives  a  blow  must  not  indulge  a  spirit  of  revenge,  but  he  may 
cherish  a  wish  to  avoid  disgrace,  and  for  this  purpose  repel  the 
assault  even  with  sword."  "  If  your  enemy  be  disposed  to  injure 
you,"  says  Escobar,  "you  ought  not  to  wish  for  his  death  through 
hatred,  but  you  may  to  avoid  injury."  Hartado  de  Mendoza 
says  :  "  When  a  gentleman  who  is  challenged  to  fight  a  duel  is 
known  not  to  be  remarkably  pious,  but  daily  commits  sins,  with- 
out the  least  scruple,  plainly  evincing  that  his  refusal  to  accept 
the  challenge  does  not  proceed  from  the  fear  of  Grod  but  from 
timidity,  he  may  be  called  a  chicken  and  not  a  man.  He  may, 
in  order  to  preserve  his  honor,  proceed  to  the  appointed  place, 
not  indeed  with  the  express  intention  of  fighting,  but  only  of 
defending  himself  if  his  enemy  should  attack  him."  Sanchez 
goes  still  farther  ;  for  he  not  only  allows  a  man  to  accept  but  to 
give  a  challenge,  if  he  direct  his  intention  aright  and  Escobar 
agrees  with  him  in  this.  "  It  is  allowable,"  says  Molina,  "to  kill 
false  witnesses  brought  against  us."  "  According  to  our  celebrated 
Father  Launey,  it  is  lawful  for  priests  and  monks  to  kill  others  to 
prevent  their  design  of  injuriously  calumniating  them.  A  priest 
or  monk  is  allowed  to  kill  a  calumniator  who  threatens  to  publish 
scandalous  crimes  of  their  society  or  themselves,  if  there  exists 
no  other  means  of  prevention  ;  as  when  just  ready  to  propagate 
his  malignities,  if  not  instantly  killed.  For  in  such  a  case,  as  it 
would  be  lawful  for  a  monk  to  kill  a  person  who  was  desirous  of 
taking  away  his  life,  so  it  is  to  kill  him  who  wishes  to  take  away 


finney's  lectukes  ox  theology.    2G9 

his  lionor^  or  that  of  his  fraternity,  in  the  same  manner  as  it  is 
for  the  people  of  the  world  in  general." 

From  these  examples  the  doctrine  of  the  Jesuits  is  very  plain. 
Moral  character  pertains  to  the  intention  alone  ;  and  all  other 
things  are  right  or  wrong  as  they  proceed  from  a  right  or  wrong 
intention.  This  is  the  doctrine  by  which  they  sapped  the  foun- 
dations of  morals  and  social  order,  and  which  procured,  more 
than  any  other  cause,  their  indignant  rejection  from  the  civilized 
world.  How  does  Mr.  Finney's  doctrine  differ  from  theirs  ?  On 
p.  134,  he  says,  in  the  passages  just  quoted,  "  Let  it  be  borne  in 
mind  [it  is  a  matter  at  once  plain  and  important]  that  if  moral 
obligation  respects  strictly  the  ultimate  intention  only,  it  follows 
that  ultimate  intention  alone  is  right  or  wrong  in  itself,  and  all 
other  things  are  right  or  wrong  as  they  proceed  from  a  right  or 
wrong  ultimate  intention."  The  only  difference  here  arises 
from  the  insertion  of  the  word  '  ultimate.'  But  we  cannot  see 
that  this  makes  any  real  difference  in  the  doctrine  itself.  Both 
parties  {i.  e.,  the  Jesuits  and  Mr.  Finney),  agree  that  the  inten- 
tion must  be  right,  and  if  that  is  right,  every  thing  which  pro- 
ceeds from  it  is  right.  The  former  say  that  the  honor  and  wel- 
fare of  the  church  is  the  proper  object  of  intention,  Mr.  Finney 
says,  the  highest  good  of  being  is  the  only  proper  object.  The 
latter  however  may  include  the  former,  and  the  Jesuit  may 
well  say,  that  in  intending  the  welfare  of  the  church  he  intends 
the  glory  of  Grod  and  the  highest  good  of  the  universe.  In  any 
event,  the  whole  poison  of  the  doctrine  lies  in  the  principle  com- 
mon to  both,  viz. :  That  whatever  proceeds  from  a  right  intention 
is  right.  If  this  is  so  then  the  end  sanctifies  the  means,  and  it 
is  right  to  do  evil,  that  good  may  come  ;  which  is  Paul's  reductio 
ad  absurdum. 

An  objection  so  obvious  and  so  fatal  to  his  system  could  not 
escape  Mr.  Finney's  sagacity.  He  frequently  notices  it,  and  pro- 
nounces it  self-contradictory  and  absurd.  On  p.  124,  he  says,  "  It 
is  nonsense  to  object  that  if  enjoyment  or  mental  satisfaction  be 
the  only  ground  of  moral  obligation,  we  should  be  indifferent  as 
to  the  means.  This  objection  assumes  that  in  seeking  an  end  for 
its  intrinsic  value,  w«  must  be  indifferent  as  to  the  way  in  which 
we  obtain  that  end,  that  is,  whether  it  be  obtained  in  a  manner 
possible  or  impossible,  right  or  wrong.  It  overlooks  the  fact  that 
from  the  laws  of  our  own  being  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  will  the 


270    Finney's  lectukes  on  theology. 

end  without  willing  also  the  indispensable  and  therefore  appro- 
priate means ;  and  also  that  we  cannot  possibly  regard  any  other 
conditions  or  means  of  the  happiness  of  moral  agents  as  possible, 
and  therefore  as  appropriate  and  right,  but  holiness  and  universal 
conformity  to  the  law  of  our  being.  As  we  said  in  a  former  lec- 
ture, enjoyment  or  mental  satisfaction  results  from  having  the 
different  demands  of  our  being  met.  One  demand  of  the  reason 
and  conscience  of  a  moral  agent  is  that  happiness  should  be  con- 
ditionated  on  holiness.  It  is  therefore  naturally  impossible  for  a 
moral  agent  to  be  satisfied  with  the  happiness  or  enjoyment  of 
moral  agents  except  on  the  condition  of  their  holiness." 

The  objection  is,  that  if  moral  character  attaches  only  to  in- 
tention, then  it  follows  that  if  the  intention  is  right  all  that  pro- 
ceeds from  it,  must  be  right,  and  consequently  that  the  end  sanc- 
tifies the  means,  no  matter  what  those  means  in  themselves  may 
be.  Mr.  Finney's  answer  to  the  objection  is,  1.  That  it  is  non- 
sense, 2.  That  it  cannot  bear  against  his  doctrine  because  he 
teaches  that  enjoyment  or  happiness  is  the  only  proper  object  of 
intention.  3.  That  it  is  a  law  of  reason  that  virtue  is  the  condi- 
tion of  happiness.  4.  And  therefore,  as  it  is  impossible  that  a 
man  should  will  the  end  without  willing  the  means,  it  is  impossi- 
ble for  him  to  will  enjoyment  without  willing  virtue  which  his 
reason  tells  him  is  its  indispensable  condition. 

On  this  answer,  which  is  substantially  repeated  in  several 
parts  of  the  work,  we  remark,  1.  That  it  overlooks  his  own  fun- 
damental principle,  viz. :  that  nothing  is  virtue  but  intending 
the  highest  good.  There  is  no  moral  excellence  in  truth,  justice, 
holiness,  except  so  far  as  they  are  forms  of  that  intention  ;  any- 
thing therefore  which  is  a  former  expression  of  that  intention,  or 
as  he  says  himself,  that  proceeds  from  it,  is  virtue.  If  therefore 
killing  a  man  jiroceeds  from  that  intention,  it  is  a  virtuous  act. 
2.  Mr.  Finney  cannot  say  certain  things  are  prohibited  by  the 
law  of  Grod,  and  are  therefore  wrong,  no  matter  with  what  inten- 
tion they  are  performed,  because  his  doctrine  is  that  law  relates 
only  to  the  intention  ;  its  authority  extends  no  further.  The 
will  of  God  is  not  the  foundation  of  any  obligation.  Here  he 
has  got  into  a  deeper  slough  even  than  the  Jesuits,  for  they  hold 
that  the  law  of  God  is  not  a  mere  declaration  of  what  is  obhga- 
tory,  and  so  far  as  we  know  they  never  substitute  obedience  to 
the  intelligence,  as  a  synonymous  expression  with  obedience  to 


finnet's  lectukes  on  theology,    271 

Grod.  3.  Nor  will  it  avail  to  say  that  if  a  man's  intention  is 
right,  he  cannot  err  as  to  the  appropriate  means  of  attaining  it, 
because  those  means  are  infallibly  revealed  in  the  reason.  For 
this  is  notoriously  not  the  fact.  The  intelligence  makes  knoven 
only  to  a  very  limited  extent,  the  means  appropriate  to  secure 
the  highest  good.  Hence  this  is  a  point  on  which  men  differ  as 
much  as  on  any  other  that  could  well  be  mentioned.  4.  It  is  a 
favorite  doctrine  of  Mr.  Finney  and  a  necessary  consequence  of 
the  maxim,  that  obligation  is  limited  by  ability,  that  a  man's 
responsibility  is  limited  by  the  degree  of  knowledge,  or  light, 
which  he  possesses.  Does  it  not  then  follow  that  if  he  has  been 
perverted  by  education,  or  brought  honestly  to  believe  that  per- 
secution, private  assassination,  or  any  other  abomination  is  an 
appropriate  means  to  the  greatest  good,  he  is  virtuous  in  employ- 
ing those  means  ?  If  the  horrors  of  the  French  revolution  were 
perpetrated  with  a  right  intention,  with  a  purpose  to  promote 
happiness,  they  were  lofty  specimens  of  virtue,  and  Kobespierre, 
Marat,  and  Danton  must  be  enrolled  as  saints.  Mr.  Finney  him- 
self says  :  "  No  moral  being  can  possibly  blame  or  charge  himself 
with  any  default,  when  he  is  conscious  of  honestly  willing,  or 
choosing,  or  acting  according  to  the  best  light  he  has  ;  for  in  this 
case  he  obeys  the  law  as  he  understands  it,  and  of  course  cannot 
conceive  himself  to  be  condemned  by  the  law."  P.  162.  He 
does  not  seem  to  have  any  conception  of  that  lowest  state  of 
moral  degradation  of  which  the  prophet  speaks,  when  he  says  of 
the  wicked,  they  put  good  for  evil,  and  evil  for  good,  sweet  for 
bitter,  and  bitter  for  sweet  ;  or  when  a  man  is  brought  to  the 
pass  of  saying.  Evil,  be  thou  my  good.  On  the  page  last  quoted 
he  asserts  that  conscious  honesty  of  intention,  according  to  the 
light  possessed,  is  entire  obedience  to  moral  law.  And  on  p.  165, 
"  If  the  intention  is  what  it  ought  to  be  for  the  time  being  no- 
thing  can  be  morally  wrong."  This,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  is  the 
j)recise  doctrine  of  the  Jesuits.  It  is  the  doctrine  which  led  to 
the  justification  of  the  murder  of  Henry  the  Fourth  of  France,  of 
the  massacre  of  the  Huguenots,  and  of  thousands  of  similar  enor- 
mities. We  mean  no  disrespect  when  we  say  it  would  be  well 
for  Mr.  Finney  to  read  the  works  of  the  Jesuit  fathers  ;  let  him 
see  what  his  principles  come  to  in  the  hands  of  wicked  men  who 
are  his  equals  in  logical  acumen  and  boldness,  and  know  nothing  of 
the  restraints  which  his  moral  and  religious  feelings  impose  on  him. 


272    Finney's  lectukes  on  theology. 

We  consider  this  a  fair  refutation.  If  the  principle  that  obli- 
gation is  limited  by  ability,  leads  to  the  conclusion,  that  moral 
character  is  confined  to  intention,  and  that  again  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  where  the  intention  is  right  nothing  can  be  morally 
wrong,  then  the  principle  is  false.  Even  if  we  could  not  detect 
its  fallacy,  we  should  know  it  could  not  be  true.  But  we  have 
already  said  the  fallacy  lies  in  applying  a  principle  which  is  true 
in  reference  to  physical  incapacity,  such  as  want  of  sight,  to  an 
inability  which,  though  natural  in  one  sense,  is  as  to  its  character 
moral,  i.  e.,  arises  out  of  the  moral  state  of  the  soul.  A  fallacy 
just  as  gross  as  it  would  be  to  argue  that  because  two  portions  of 
matter  cannot  occupy  at  one  time,  the  same  portion  of  space, 
therefore  two  thousrhts  cannot  co-exist  in  the  same  mind. 

O 

A  Second  doctrine  which  flows  from  Mr.  Finney's  principles 
and  which  characterizes  his  whole  system,  concerns  the  founda- 
tion of  moral  obligation.  We  have  seen  that  he  holds  that  obliga- 
tion is  limited  to  intention,  but  on  what  does  that  obligation  rest  ? 
Why  is  a  man  bound  to  intend  one  thing  rather  than  another  ? 
Mr,  Finney  answers  this  question  by  denying,  1st.  That  the  will 
of  God  is  the  foundation  of  this  obligation.  Against  this  doctrine 
he  urges  such  reasons  as  the  following,  1.  "  This  theory  makes 
God's  willing,  commanding,  the  foundation  of  the  obligation  to 
choice  or  intent  an  ultimate  end.  If  this  is  so  then  the  willing 
of  God  is  the  end  to  be  intended.  For  the  end  to  be  intended 
and  the  reason  of  the  obligation  are  identical."  2.  God  himself 
is  under  moral  obligation,  and  therefore  there  is  some  reason  in- 
dependent of  his  own  will,  which  imposes  upon  him  the  obliga- 
tion to  will  as  he  does.  3.  If  the  will  of  God  is  the  foundation 
of  obligation,  he  can  by  willing  it  change  virtue  into  vice.  4.  If  the 
will  of  God  is  the  foundation  of  moral  obligation,  we  have  no  stan- 
dard by  which  to  judge  of  the  moral  character  of  his  acts.  5.  The 
will  of  no  being  can  be  law.     Moral  law  is  an  idea  of  the  reason, 

Mr.  Finney's  book  is  made  up  of  half-truths.  It  is  true  that 
the  will  of  God  divorced  from  his  infinite  wisdom  and  excellence, 
mere  arbitrary  will,  is  not  the  foundation  of  moral  obligation. 
But  the  preceptive  will  of  God,  is  but  the  revelation  of  his  na- 
ture, the  expression  of  what  that  nature  is,  sees  to  be  right,  and 
approves.  It  is  also  true  that  some  things  are  right  because  God 
wills  or  commands  them,  and  that  he  wills  other  things  because 
they  are  right.  Some  of  his  precepts,  therefore,  are  founded  on 
his  own  immutable   nature,  others  on  the  peculiar  relations  of 


Finney's  lectures  on  theology.    273 

man,  and  others  again  upon  his  simple  command.  We  can  have 
no  higher  evidence  that  a  thing  is  right,  than  the  command  of 
God,  and  his  command  creates  an  obligation  to  obedience,  whether 
we  can  see  the  reason  of  the  precept  or  not,  or  whether  it  have 
any  reason  apart  from  his  good  pleasure.  Mr.  Finney  is  right  so 
far  as  saying  that  the  will  of  God,  considered  as  irrational, 
groundless  volition,  is  not  the  ultimate  foundation  of  moral  obli- 
gation, but  his  will  as  the  revelation  of  the  infinitely  perfect 
nature  of  God,  is  not  merely  the  rule,  but  ground  of  obligation  to 
his  creatures.  So  that  their  obedience  does  not  terminate  on  the 
universe,  nor  on  Eeason,  in  the  abstract,  but  upon  God,  the  per- 
sonal Reason,  the  infinitely  perfect,  and  because  he  is  the  infi- 
nitely perfect. 

2d.  Our  author  denies  that  the  divine  moral  excellence  is  the 
ground  of  moral  obligation.  This  he  pronounces  to  be  absurd. 
Moral  obligation  respects^  the  choice  of  an  ultimate  end.  The 
reason  of  the  obligation  and  the  end  chosen  must  be  identical. 
Therefore,  what  is  chosen  as  an  end,  must  be  chosen  for  its  own 
sake.  But  virtue  being  chosen  as  a  means  to  an  end,  viz.:  en- 
joyment, cannot  be  the  end  chosen.  This  of  course  follows  from 
the  principle  that  enjoyment  is  the  only  intrinsic  good,  the  only 
thing  that  should  be  chosen  for  its  own  sake,  and  other  things 
only  as  they  are  the  means  or  conditions  of  attaining  that  end. 

We  should  like  to  ask,  however,  how  Mr.  Finney  knows  that 
happiness  is  a  good,  and  a  good  in  itself  to  be  chosen  for  its  own 
sake  ?  If  he  should  answer,  that  is  a  first  truth  of  reason;  is  it 
not  a  first  truth  of  reason,  that  moral  excellence  is  a  good,  and  a 
far  higher  good  to  be  chosen  for  its  own  sake  .?  It  is  degraded 
and  denied,  if  it  be  chosen  simply  as  a  means  of  enjoyment.  If 
the  idea  of  moral  excellence,  is  not  a  primary,  independent  one, 
then  we  have  no  moral  nature,  we  have  a  sentient  and  rational 
nature  ;  a  capacity  for  enjoyment,  and  the  power  of  perceiving 
and  adapting  means  to  its  attainment.  We  may  be  wise  or 
foolish,  but  the  ideas  of  wrong  as  wrong,  and  right  as  right,  are 
lost.  They  are  merged  into  those  of  wise  and  unwise.  If  God 
and  reason  affirm  obligation,  they  affirm  that  virtue  and  vice  are 
not  terms  to  express  the  relations  of  certain  things  to  enjoyment. 
They  affirm  that  the  one  is  a  good  in  itself  and  the  other  an  evil 
in  itself  ;  and  this  is  the  loudest  affirmation  in  the  human  soul, 
and  woe  to  the  man  in  whom  it  ceases  to  be  heard.    No  sophistry 

18 


274    Finney's  lectures  on  theology. 

can  render  the  conscience  permanently  insensible  to  the  author- 
ity of  God  asserting  that  virtue  is  to  be  chosen  for  its  own  sake, 
and  that  it  is  not  chosen  at  all,  unless  it  be  so  chosen.  Let  this 
not  be  supposed  to  conflict  with  the  assertion  that  the  will  of 
God  is  also  the  ground  of  obligation.  For  wdiat  is  the  will  of 
God  ?  what  is  God,  but  the  sum  of  all  excellence,  almighty  self- 
conscious  reason  and  holiness.  In  choosing  virtue  for  its  own 
sake  we  choose  God,  It  is  one  of  Mr  Finney's  hobbies  that  the 
ground  of  obligation  must  be  one  and  simple.  If  it  is  the  will  of 
God,. it  is  not  his  moral  excellence  ;  if  his  moral  excellence  it  is 
not  his  will.  This,  however,  may  be  safely  referred  to  the  com- 
mon judgment  of  men.  They  are  conscious  that  even  entirely 
distinct  grounds  of  obligation  may  concur  ;  as  the  nature  of  the 
thing  commanded,  the  authority  of  him  who  gives  the  command, 
and  the  tendency  of  what  is  enjoined.  If  these  are  considerations 
which  affect  the  reason,  they  bind  the  conscience.  They  are  the 
bond  or  Kgament  which  "  binds  a  moral  agent  to  the  moral  law.*' 

3d.  Mr.  Finney's  own  theory  of  the  foundation  of  moral  obli- 
gation is  of  course  involved  in  his  principle  that  enjoyment  is 
the  only  intrinsic  good.  The  fourth  lecture  is  devoted  to  the 
consideration  of  this  subject.  In  that  lecture,  after  arguing  to 
prove  that  the  highest  well-being  of  God  and  the  universe  is  the 
ultimate  and  absolute  good,  and  that  their  highest  good,  must 
be  natural  good  or  happiness,  and  not  moral  good  or  virtue,  he 
comes  to  the  conclusion  that  the  intrinsic  value  of  happiness  is 
the  sole  foundation  of  the  obligation  to  will  it  as  the  ultimate 
end.  The  conclusions  from  this  doctrine,  as  stated  on  page  148, 
are,  1,  "  Upon  this  theory  moral  obligation  respects  the  choice 
of  an  ultimate  end,  2,  This  end  is  an  unit.  3,  It  is  necessarily 
known  to  every  moral  agent.  4.  The  choice  of  this  end  is  the 
whole  of  virtue.  5.  It  is  impossible  to  sin  while  this  end  is  in- 
tended with  all  the  heart  and  all  the  soul,  6.  Upon  this  theory 
every  moral  agent  knows  in  every  possible  instance  what  is  right, 
and  can  never  mistake  his  real  duty.  7.  This  ultimate  intention 
is  right,  and  nothing  else  is  right  more  or  less.  8.  Eight  and 
wrong  respect  ultimate  intention  only  and  are  always  the  same. 
Right  can  be  predicated  only  of  good-will,  and  wrong  only  of  self- 
ishness." 

We  briefly  remark  on  this  theory,  that  it  changes  the  whole 
nature  of  religion.  Our  whole  and  sole  obligation  "is  to  the  uni- 
verse, and  to  God  only  as  one  of  the  constituent  members  of  uni- 


FINNEY'S    LECTURES     ON     THEOLOGY.  275 

versal  being.  There  is  and  can  bo  no  allegiance  to  God  as  God, 
and  hence  Mr.  Finney  substitutes  perpetually,  "  obedience  to  the 
Intelligence,"  to  an  "  idea  of  the  Reason,"  as  synonymous  with 
obedience  to  God,  or  the  moral  law.  In  his  whole  system  and 
of  necessity  God  is  subordinate  to  the  universe.  Again,  it  is  of 
the  essence  of  religion  that  love  to  God  should  include  conge- 
niality, complacency,  reverence,  and  delight  in  his  divine  perfec- 
tions. In  other  words,  that  his  moral  excellence  should  be  loved 
and  chosen  for  its  own  sake.  Mr.  Finney's  system  will  not  allow 
him  to  attach  any  other  meaning  to  love  than  "  good-will,"  i.  e., 
willing  good  or  happiness  to  any  one.  Love  of  God,  therefore, 
can,  according  to  his  doctrine,  be  nothing  more  than  willing  his 
happiness  ;  and  this  obligation  is  entirely  independent  of  his  moral 
excellence.  He  admits  that  his  moral  goodness  is  the  condition 
of  our  willing  his  actual  happiness,  but  it  is  not  the  ground  of 
our  obligation  to  love  him,  or  to  will  his  good.  As  far  as  our  feel- 
ings are  concerned,  there  ought  to  be  no  difference  between  God 
and  Satan — we  are  bound  to  will  the  happiness  of  each  accord- 
ing to  their  intrinsic  value — good-will  being  the  whole  of  virtue, 
and  good- win  having  no  respect  to  the  moral  character  of  its  ob- 
ject, there  is  no  more  virtue  in  loving  God  (willing  his  good) 
than  in  loving  Satan.'  No  one  of  course  denies  that  benevolence 
is  a  virtue,  but  the  slavery  to  system,  to  the  miserable  logic  of 
the  understanding,  consists  in  asserting  that  it  is  the  only  virtue  ; 
that  love  to  Christ,  does  not  differ  in  its  nature  from  benevolence 
to  the  devil,  nor  the  love  of  the  brotherhood  from  benevolence  to 
the  wicked.^     As  the  essential  nature  of  religion  is  changed,  per- 

'  In  answer  to  the  objection  that  we  are  under  obhgation  "  to  love  God  because  he 
is  good,  and  that  this  affirmation  has  no  reference  to  the  good  of  God,"  he  answers, 
"  Such  an  affirmation  if  it  is  made,  is  most  nonsensical  What  is  it  to  love  God  ? 
Why,  as  is  agreed,  it  is  not  to  exercise  a  mere  emotion  of  complacency  in  him.  It  is 
to  will  something  to  him,"  which  of  course  is  happiness.  P.  64.  "Should  it  be  said 
that  God's  holiness  is  the  foundation  of  our  obligation  to  love  him,  I  ask  in  what 
sense  it  can  bo  so  ?  It  cannot  bo  a  mere  emotion  of  complacency,  for  emotions  be- 
ing involuntary  states  of  mind  and  mere  phenomena  of  the  sensibility  are  without  the 
pale  of  legislation  and  morality."  P.  91.  The  moral  perfections  of  God  do  not  even 
increase  our  obligation  to  love  him.  "  We  are  under  infinite  obligation  to  love  God 
and  wLU  his  good  with  all  our  power  because  of  the  intrinsic  value  of  his  well-being, 
whether  he  is  sinful  or  holy.  Upon  condition  that  he  is  holy,  we  are  under  obligation 
to  will  his  actual  blessedness,  but  certainly  we  are  under  obhgation  to  will  it  with 
no  more  than  all  our  heart,  and  soul,  and  mind,  and  strength.  But  this  we  are  re- 
quired to  do  because  of  the  intrinsic  value  of  his  blessedness,  whatever  his  character 
may  be.'  V.  99. 

"  Hence  llr.  Finney  says,  "The  command  is.  Thou   shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as 


276    finney's  lectures  on  theology. 

verted,  and  destroyed  by  this  theory,  so  also  of  course  is  the  na- 
ture of  sin.  But  this  may  be  more  appropriately  noticed  under 
the  following  head  : 

A  THIRD  doctrine  which  flows  from  the  two  radical  principles 
of  this  book,  is  that  there  is  no  moral  character  in  the  feelings  or 
affections.  This,  indeed,  is  necessarily  involved  in  what  has 
already  been  said,  but  it  is  in  itself  so  important,  and  so  charac- 
teristic a  part  of  the  system,  that  it  deserves  a  more  distinct  ex- 
hibition. If  obligation  is  limited  by  ability,  and  therefore  con- 
fined to  acts  of  the  will  ;  and  if  the  affections  are  neither  acts  of 
the  will  nor  under  its  immediate  control,  it  follows  of  course  that 
we  cannot  be  responsible  for  them,  they  lie  "  without  the  pale  of 
legislation  and  morality."  Again,  if  enjoyment  is  only  intrinsic 
good,  then  all  virtue  consists  in  benevolence,  or  in  willing  the 
happiness  of  sentient  beings,  and  consequently  there  is  no  virtue 
in  any  state  of  the  affections.  So  the  same  conclusion  is  reached 
in  two  different  ways. 

This  consequence  of  his  principles  Mr.  Finney  presents  on 
almost  every  page  of  his  book.  Moral  obligation  he  says  cannot 
directly  extend  to  any  "states  of  the  sensibility.  I  have  already 
remarked  that  we  are  conscious  that  our  feelings  are  not  volun- 
tary but  involuntary  states  of  the  mind.  Moral  obligation  there- 
fore cannot  directly  extend  to  them."  P.  35.  They  have  no  more 
of  a  moral  nature  than  outward  actions.  A  man  is  responsible 
for  his  outward  acts  only  as  they  are  determined  by  the  will,  and 
in  like  manner  he  is  responsible  for  his  feelings  only  as  they  are 
produced  or  cherished  by  the  will,  or  rather  as  the  will  yields  to 
them.  The  whole  of  sin  consists  in  allowing  the  will  to  be  de- 
termined by  them.  In  the  feelings  themselves  there  is  nothing 
good  or  bad.  "  If  any  outward  action  or  state  of  the  feeling 
exists  in  opposition  to  the  intention  or  choice  of  the  mind,  it 
cannot  by  possibility,  have  moral  character.  Whatever  is  be- 
yond the  control  of  a  moral  agent,  he  cannot  be  responsible  for." 
P.  164.  And  therefore,  "  if  from  exhaustion,  or  any  cause  be- 
yond our  control  the  emotion  does  not  arise  from  the  considera- 
tion of  the  subject  which  is  calculated  to  produce  it,  we  are  no 
more  responsible  for  the  weakness  or  absence  of  the  emotion, 

thyself.  This  says  nothing  about  the  character  of  my  neighbor.  It  is  the  value  of 
his  interests,  of  his  well-being,  that  the  law  requires  me  to  regard.  It  does  not  re- 
quire me  to  love  my  righteous  neighbor  merely,  nor  to  love  my  righteous  neighbor 
better  than  I  do  my  wicked  neighbor."  P.  95. 


Finney's  lectures  on  theology    277 

than  we  should  be  for  the  want  or  weakness  of  motion  in  our 
muscles,  when  we  willed  to  move  them."  P,  165.  Of  course  all 
self-condemnation  for  coldness,  or  hardness  of  heart,  or  want  of 
right  affections  towards  God,  rests  on  a  false  philosophy,  that  is, 
arises  from  overlooking  "  that  in  which  moral  character  consists." 
"  Love  may,  and  often  does  exist,  as  every  one  knows,  in  the 
forai  of  a  mere  feeling  or  emotion.  *  *  *  This  emotion  or 
feeling,  as  we  are  aware,  is  purely  an  involuntary  state  of  the 
mind  ;  because  it  is  a  phenomenon  of  the  sensibility,  and  of 
course  a  passive  state  of  mind,  it  has  in  itself  no  moral  charac- 
ter." P.  213.  "  Gratitude  as  a  mere  feeling  or  phenomenon  of 
the  sensibility,  has  no  moral  character."  P.  278.  The  same 
thing  is  said  of  benevolence,  compassion,  mercy,  conscientious- 
ness, &c.,  &c.  The  doctrine  is  :  "  That  no  state  of  the  sensibil- 
ity has  any  moral  character  in  itself."  P,  521. 

On  this  subject  we  would  remark,  1.  That  there  is  a  form  of 
truth  in  this  as  in  most  other  parts  of  this  system  ;  but  a  half- 
truth  when  presented  as  the  whole,  and  especially  when  accom- 
panied with  the  denial  of  the  other  elements  which  enter  into 
the  proposition,  becomes  a  dangerous  error.  It  is  true  that  char- 
acter depends  more  upon  fixed  purposes  and  principles,  than  it 
does  on  feelings.  It  is  also  true  that  the  tenor  of  a  man's  life,  as 
evincing  his  governing  princiides,  is  a  better  test  of  his  character 
than  mere  emotions.  But  then  what  determines  these  fixed 
purposes  of  the  soul  .^  Unless  they  are  determined  by  moral  and 
religious  considerations,  they  are  not  themselves  either  moral  or 
religious.  Unless  our  fixed  determination  to  obey  God,  to  devote 
ourselves  to  the  promotion  of  his  glory,  flows  from  a  due  appre- 
ciation of  his  excellence,  and  from  a  sense  of  our  obligations  to 
him,  it  is  not  a  religious  purpose.  And  unless  our  determination 
that  it  shall  be  Christ  for  us  to  live,  arises  from  an  apprehension 
of  the  glory  of  his  person  and  of  our  relation  to  him  as  the  pur- 
chase of  his  blood,  it  is  not  a  Christian  jiurpose.  It  may  be  phi- 
lanthropic or  benevolent,  but  it  is  neither  religious  nor  Christian. 
But  2.  The  Scriptures,  our  own  consciousness,  and  the  universal 
judgment  of  men,  recognize  those  afiections  which  terminate  on 
moral  objects  as  having  a  moral  character,  and  therefore  any 
theory  which  denies  this  must  be  false.  Tlie  love  of  God,  is 
essentially  the  love  of  the  divine  perfections,  complacency  and 
delight  in  him  as  the  infinitely  good,  which  leads  to  adoration 
and  obedience.     It  can  hardly  be  denied  that  this  is  the  constant 


278  Finney's  lectures  on  theology. 

representation  of  the  Bible,  and  especially  of  its  devotional 
parts.  The  Psalmist  speaks  of  himself  as  longing  after  God  as 
a  hart  pants  for  the  cooling  waters.  Whom  have  I  in  heaven, 
he  exclaims,  but  thee,  and  there  is  none  on  earth  I  desire  besides 
thee.  All  this  Mr.  Finney  pronounces  delusion  or  selfishness. 
"  When  a  moral  agent,"  he  says,  "  is  intensely  contemplating  moral 
excellence,  and  his  intellectual  approbation  is  emphatically  pro- 
nounced, the  natural  and  often  the  necessary  result  is,  a  corre- 
sponding feeling  of  complacency  and  delight  in  the  sensibility. 
But  this  being  altogether  an  involuntary  state  of  the  mind,  has 
no  moral  character."  P.  224.  "  Indeed  it  is  j)erhaps  the  general 
usage  now  to  call  this  phenomenon  of  the  sensibility  love,  and 
for  want  of  just  discrimination,  to  speak  of  it  as  constituting 
religion.  Many  seem  to  suppose  that  this  feeling  of  delight  in 
and  fondness  for  God,  is  the  love  required  by  the  moral  law."  P. 

224.  "  It  is  remarkable  to  what  extent  religion  is  regarded  as  a 
phenomenon  of  the  sensibility  and  as  consisting  in  feeling."   P. 

225.  "  Nothing  is  of  greater  importance  than  forever  to  under- 
stand that  religion  is  a  phenomenon  of  the  will."  P.  227.  The 
legitimate  and  sufficient  answer  to  all  this  is  that  it  contradicts 
the  common  conciousness  of  men.  They  know  it  cannot  be  true. 
If  Mr.  Finney  says  it  is  a  first  truth  of  reason,  that  it  is  right  to 
wUl  the  highest  good,  which  we  admit,  we  say,  it  is  a  first  truth 
of  reason  that  compassion,  benevolence,  love  of  God,  conscientious- 
ness, gratitude,  devotion,  reverence,  humihty,  repentance,  as  states 
of  feeling,  have  a  moral  character.  He  is  forced  to  admit  that 
this  is  the  common  judgment,  and  recognized  in  what  he  calls 
"  the  popular  language  of  the  Bible."  A  philosophy  which  leads 
to  a  denial  of  this  plain  fact  of  conciousness,  this  first  truth  of 
reason,  is  a  false  philosoj^hy. 

It  is  obvious  that  a  theory  which  reduces  all  virtue  and  religion 
to  a  simple  act  of  the  will,  must  lead  to  the  same  view  as  to  the 
nature  of  sin.  If  virtue  has  no  place  in  the  affections,  neither 
can  sin  have.  If  all  religion  is  centred  in  one  intention,  all  sin 
must  be  confined  to  another.  If  all  virtue  is  benevolence,  all  sin 
is  selfishness.  But  as  benevolence  is  not  an  aftection,  but  a  pur- 
pose, so  selfishness  must  be  an  intention.  It  cannot  consist,  the 
author  tells  us,  in  malevolence  ;  "  it  cannot  consist  in  any  state  of 
the  intelhgence  or  sensibility,  for  these,  as  we  have  seen,  are  in- 
voluntary and  depend  on  acts  of  the  will."  P.  286.  "  It  must 
consist  in  the  choice  of  self-gratification  as  an  end."     Or  "  sin 


Finney's  lectures  on  theology.    279 

consists  in  being  governed  by  the  sensibility  instead  of  being  gov- 
erned by  the  law  of  God  as  it  lies  revealed  in  the  reason."  P. 
287.  This  is  a  frequently  recurring  definition.  "  Benevolence 
is  yielding  the  will  up  unreservedly  to  the  demands  of  the  intel- 
ligence." P.  275.  "  As  the  will  must  either  follow  the  law  of 
reason,  or  the  impulses  of  the  sensibility,  it  follows  that  moral 
agents  are  shut  uj)  to  the  necessity  of  being  selfish  or  benevo- 
lent." P.  290.  "  Men  naturally  desire  their  own  happiness  and 
the  happiness  of  others.  This  is  constitutional.  But  when  in 
obedience  to  these  desires  they  will  their  own  or  others'  happi- 
ness, they  seek  to  gratify  their  sensibility  or  desires.  This  is 
selfishness."  P.  290.  Of  course  it  makes  no  manner  of  dififer- 
ence  what  the  nature  of  the  feeling  is  that  determines  the  will. 
The  sin  does  not  lie  in  the  nature  of  the  feeling,  but  in  the  will's 
being  determined  by  any  feeling.  "  It  matters  not  what  kind  of 
desire  it  is,  if  it  is  desire  that  governs  the  will,  this  is  selfishness." 
P.  301.'  It  may  be  a  desire  of  our  own  salvation,  the  desire  of 
holiness,  of  the  salvation  of  others,  of  the  good  of  the  world,  of 
the  glory  of  God,  of  the  triumphs  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  It  matters 
not.  It  is  just  as  selfish  and  as  wicked  to  have  the  will  deter- 
mined by  such  desires,  as  by  avarice,  envy,  or  malice.  "  The 
choice  of  any  thing  because  it  is  desired,  is  selfishness  and  sin." 
P.  305.  "  Some  writers  have  fallen  into  the  strange  mistake  of 
making  virtue  to  consist  in  the  gratification  of  certain  desires, 
because,  as  they  say,  those  desires  are  virtuous.  They  make 
some  of  the  desires  selfish  and  some  benevolent.  To  yield  the 
will  to  the  control  of  the  selfish  propensities,  is  sin.  To  yield  the 
will  to  the  control  of  the  benevolent  desires,  such  as  the  desire  of 
my  neighbors'  happiness,  and  the  public  happiness,  is  virtue,  be- 
cause these  are  good  desires,  while  the  selfish  desires  are  evil. 
Now  this  has  been  a  very  common  view  of  virtue  and  vice.  But 
it  is  fundamentally  erroneous.  None  of  the  constitutional  desires 
are  good  or  evil  in  themselves.  They  are  all  alike  involuntary 
and  terminate  on  their  correlated  objects.  To  yield  the  wiU  to 
the  control  of  any  one  of  them,  no  matter  which,  is  sin."  P. 
503.  Mr.  Finney  is  beautifully  consistent  in  all  this,  and  in  the 
consequences  which  of  necessity  flow  from  his  doctrine.  He 
admits  that  if  a  man  pays  his  debts  from  a  sense  of  justice,  or 
feeling  of  concientiousness,  he  is  therein  and  therefor  just   as 

'  The  sinner  may  "  feel  deeply  malicious  and  rovGagefal  feelings  towards  God  ;  but 
sin  does  not  consist  in  these  feelings  or  necessarily  imply  them."     P.  296. 


280  Finney's   lectures   on   theology. 

wicked  as  if  he  stole  a  horse.'  Or  if  a  man  preaches  the  gospel 
from  a  desire  to  glorify  God  and  benefit  his  fellow  men,  he  is  just 
as  wicked  for  so  doing  as  a  pirate.''  We  may  safely  challenge 
Hurtado  de  Mendoza,  Sanchez,  or  Molina  to  beat  that. 

It  passes  our  comprehension  to  discover  why  the  will  being 
determined  by  the  desire  to  honor  God  is  selfishness  and  sin, 
while  its  being  determined  by  the  desire  of  the  highest  good  is 
virtue.  It  is  as  much  determined  by  desire  in  the  one  case  as  in 
the  other.  Mr.  Finney  says  indeed  that  in  the  one  case  it  is  de- 
termined by  the  intelligence,  and  in  the  other,  by  the  sensibility. 
But  reason  as  much  dictates  that  we  should  honor  God,  as  that 
we  should  seek  the  happiness  of  the  universe.  And  the  will  is 
as  much  decided  by  the  intelligence  in  the  one  case  as  in  the 
other.  The  only  way  in  which  the  intelligence  can  determine  the 
will  is,  that  the  truth  which  the  intelligence  contemplates, 
whether  it  be  the  value  of  the  well-being  of  the  universe,  or  the 
excellence  of  God,  awakens  the  corresponding  desire  or  feeling  of 
right,  fitness,  or  obligation,  and  that  determines  the  will.  If  the 
will  is  not  determined  by  a  desire  to  secure  the  happiness  of  the 
universe,  what  benevolence  is  there  in  such  a  determination  ? 

Mr.  Finney's  j)rinciples  lead  him  to  assert  that  there  is  no  differ- 
ence in  their  feelings  between  the  renewed  and  the  unrenewed, 
the  sinner  and  the  saint.  "  The  sensibility  of  the  sinner,"  he 
says,  "  is  susceptible  of  every  kind  and  degree  of  feeling  that  is 
possible  to  saints."  P.  521.  He  accordingly  goes  on  to  show 
that  sinners  may  desire  sanctification,  delight  in  the  truth,  abhor 
sin,  have  complacency  in  good  men,  entertain  feelings  of  love 
and  gratitude  to  God,  and  in  short,  be,  as  to  feeling  and  conduct, 
exactly  what  saints  are.  The  only  essential  diiference  is  in 
the  will,  in  their  ultimate  purpose  or  intention.  The  sinner's 
ultimate  intention  may  be  to  promote  the  glory  of  God,  from  a 
sense  of  duty,  or  from   appreciation  of  the   loveliness  of  moral 

'  "He  may  be  prevented  (committing  commercial  injustice)  by  a  constitutional  or 
phrenological  conscientiousness,  or  sense  of  justice.  But  this  is  only  a  feeling  of  the 
sensibility,  and  if  restrained  only  by  this,  he  is  just  as  absolutely  selfish,  as  if  he  had 
stolen  a  horse  in  obedience  to  acquisitiveness."     P.  317. 

'  "  If  the  selfish  man  were  to  preach  the  gospel,  it  would  be  only  because  upon  the 
whole  it  was  most  pleasing  or  gratifying  to  himselfj  and  not  at  all  for  the  sake  of 
the  good  of  being  as  an  end.  If  ho  should  become  a  pirate,  it  would  be  for  exactly 
the  same  reason.  *  *  *  Whichever  course  he  takes,  he  takes  it  for  precisely  the 
same  reason ;  and  with  the  same  degree  of  hght  it  must  involve  the  same  degree  of 
guilt."    P.  355. 


Finney's  lectukes  on  theology.    281 

excellence,  and  he  be  no  better  than  a  pirate  ;  if  his  ultimate 
end  is  to  promote  happiness  because  happiness  is  intrinsically- 
valuable,  he  is  a  saint.' 

A  Fourth  doctrine  flowing  from  Mr.  Finney's  fundamental 
principles,  is  that  every  man  must,  at  any  given  moment,  be 
either  totally  depraved,  i.  e.,  as  wicked  as  it  is  possible  for  him, 
with  his  knowledge,  to  be,  or  perfectly  holy.  This  is  a  conclu- 
sion which  it  would  appear  he  finds  some  difficulty  in  persuading 
his  friends  to  adopt.  They  receive  the  premises,  they  admit 
the  validity  of  many  other  sequences  from  them,  but  this  is  rath- 
er more  than  they  are  prepared  for.  Mr.  Finney  is  right,  and 
he  knows  it.  He  has  them  in  his  power,  and  he  commands  them 
to  follow  wherever  he  and  the  "  Intelligence"  lead.  If  the  In- 
telligence deceives  us  here,  we  can  never  know  truth  from  error. 
If  obligation  is  limited  by  ability  ;  if  ability  extends  only  to 
acts  of  the  will  ;  if  the  acts  of  the  will  are  confined  to  the 
choice  of  ends  and  means  ;  and  if  the  choice  of  means  has  no 
moral  character  but  from  the  nature  of  the  end  chosen,  it  follows 
that  all  morality  is  confined  to  the  choice  of  an  end.  If  the 
right  end  is  chosen,  the  agent  discharges  his  whole  duty ;  he  ful- 
fils the  single  command  of  law  and  reason.  If  he  chooses  the 
wrong  end,  he  commits  all  the  sin  of  which  he  is  capable.  The 
only  respect  in  which  one  moral  agent  can  be  either  better  or 
worse  than  another,  is  as  one  has  more  ability  than  another.  A 
child  has  not  the  knowledge  or  strength  of  a  man,  nor  a  man  of 
an  angel.  It  is  not  required,  therefore,  of  the  child  to  have  so 
high  an  estimate  of  the  value  of  "  the  good  of  being,"  as  a  man 
should  have,  nor  of  a  man  that  lie  should  have  the  comprehen- 
sive and  consequent  strength  of  intention  of  an  angel.  If  ability 
limits  obligation,  all  that  can  be  required  is,  that  a  moral  agent 
should  will  the  highest  good  with  an  intensity  proportioned  to 
his  honest  conviction  of  its  value.  That  is,  "  with  conscious 
honesty  of  intention."     This  is  all  an  angel  can  do,  and  it  is  per- 

'  "  "Whether  he  [the  unrenewed  man]  preach  and  pray,  or  rob  and  plunder  upon 
the  high  seas,  he  does  it  only  for  one  end,  that  is,  for  precisely  the  same  reason,  [viz. 
to  gratify  some  feeling ;]  and  of  course  his  sinfulness  is  complete  in  the  sense  that 
it  can  only  be  varied  by  varying  light.  This  I  know  is  contrary  to  the  common 
opinion,  but  it  is  the  truth,  and  must  be  known ;  and  it  is  of  the  highest  importance 
that  these  fundamental  truths  of  morality  and  of  immorality  should  be  held  up  to  the 
minds  of  all."  P.  355.  On  the  same  page  we  are  taught,  that  if  a  man  abstains 
from  any  thing  "  because  it  is  wicked"  it  is  selfish,  because  the  will  is  determined  by 
"  phrenological  conscientiousness." 


282    Finney's  lectukes  on  theology. 

fection  in  him.  It  is  all  a  converted  pirate  can  do,  and  it  is  per  ■ 
fection  in  him. 

Again,  ii'  happiness  or  enjoyment  he  the  only  real  good,  to  in- 
tend the  highest  enjoyment  of  sentient  heings  is  the  whole  of 
virtue,  to  intend  our  own  gi-atification  is  the  whole  of  sin.  It  is 
impossihle  that  these  intentions  shoidd  co-exist  in  the  mind.  If 
a  man  intends  the  one,  he  does  not  intend  the  other.  If  all  mo- 
rality centres  in  this  ultimate  intention,  he  must,  therefore,  at 
any  given  moment,  be  perfectly  sinful  or  perfectly  holy.  This  is 
a  severe  dose  of  logic,  but  Mr.  Finney  will  not  tolerate  even  a 
wry  face  in  swallowing  it. 

"  The  new  or  regenerate  heart  cannot  sin.  It  is  benevolence, 
love  to  God  and  man.  This  cannot  sin.  These  are  both  ulti- 
mate choices  or  intentions,  they  are  from  their  own  nature  effi- 
cient, each  excluding  the  other,  and  each  securing  for  the  time 
being,  the  exclusive  use  of  means  to  j^romote  its  end.  To  deny 
this,  is  the  same  absurdity  as  to  maintain,  either  that  the  will  can 
at  the  same  time  choose  two  opposite  ends,  or  that  it  can  choose 
one  end  only,  but  at  the  same  time  choose  the  means  to  accom- 
plish another  end  not  yet  chosen.  Now  either  alternative  is  ab- 
surd. Then  holiness  and  sin  can  never  co-exist  in  the  same  mind. 
Each,  as  has  been  said,  for  the  time  being,  necessarily  excludes 
the  other.  Selfishness  and  benevolence  co-exist  in  the  same 
mind  !  A  greater  absurdity  and  a  more  gross  contradiction  was 
never  conceived  or  expressed."  P.  310.  This  is  sound  logic,  and 
therefore  we  must  either  admit  that  every  man  is  either  perfectly 
holy  or  entirely  sinful,  at  any  given  time,  or  we  must  deny  that 
moral  obligation  is  confined  to  intention  ;  and  if  we  deny  that, 
we  must  of  course  admit,  that  feelings  or  states  of  the  sensibility 
may  have  a  moral  character,  and  if  we  concede  that  point,  we 
must  concede  that  obligation  is  not  limited  by  ability,  and  then 
the  great  Diana  of  the  Ephesians  has  fallen. 

This  doctrine  of  the  simplicity  or  unity  of  moral  character  is 
very  prominently  presented  in  this  work.  In  Lecture  xi.  the 
main  proposition  contended  for  is  :  "  Moral  character  is  wholly 
right  or  wholly  wrong,  and  never  partly  right  and  partly  wrong 
at  the  same  time."  P.  156.  In  Lecture  xxviii.,  he  says  :  "  This 
conducts  us  to  the  conclusion  or  truth  to  be  demonstrated,  name- 
ly:  That  moral  agents  are  at  all  times  either  as  holy  or  sinful  as 
with  their  knowledge  they  can  be."  P.  354. 

We  have  Kttlc  space  to  devote  to  remarks  on  this  subject,  and 


Finney's  lectures  on  theology.  283 

surely  little  need  be  said.  Tlie  doctrine  of  course  rests  on  a  false 
apprehension  of  the  nature  of  sin  and  holiness,  and  of  the  grounds 
and  extent  of  our  obligations.  Our  own  conscience  and  the  Bible 
teach  us  that  we  are  bound  to  be  completely  conformed  to  the 
law  or  image  of  God  ;  that  in  whatever  respect  or  degree  we 
fall  short  of  that  standard  of  excellence,  we  sin  ;  and  that  the 
law  of  God  exhibits  what  rational  beings  ought  to  be,  not  what 
they  can  be,  not  what  they  have  plenary  power  at  any  moment 
to  make  themselves,  but  what  they  would  be  and  would  at  all 
times  have  power  to  be,  were  it  not  for  their  sinfulness.  No 
man,  according  to  the  standard  of  conscience  and  of  the  Bible,  is 
perfect,  who  is  not  perfectly  like  Christ,  or  has  not  attained  to 
"  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ ;"  who  has 
not  the  same  love,  reverence,  humility,  patience,  long-sutfering, 
mercy,  that  were  in  him.  It  shocks  the  moral  sense  of  men  to 
say  that  a  pirate,  with  all  his  darkness  of  mind  as  to  God,  and 
divine  things,  with  all  his  callousness,  with  all  the  moral  habits 
of  a  life  of  crime,  becomes  perfectly  holy,  by  a  change  of  will,  by 
forming  a  new  intention,  by  mere  honesty  of  purpose.  If  the 
demands  of  God  thus  rapidly  sink  with  the  increasing  depravity 
of  men,  as  has  often  been  remarked,  the  shortest  road  to  perfec- 
tion is  the  most  debasing  course  of  crime.  2.  Need  any  reader  of 
the  Bible  be  reminded  that  the  consciousness  of  sin,  of  present 
corruption  and  unworthiness,  is  one  of  the  most  uniform  features 
of  the  experience  of  God's  people  as  there  recorded  ?  3.  Or  is 
there  any  one  point  in  which  Christian  experience  in  all  ages  of 
the  church  is  more  strongly  pronounced,  than  in  this  sense  of  sin 
and  consequently  humiliation  under  it  ?  In  opposition  to  the 
common  consciousness  of  men,  to  the  plainest  teachings  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  to  the  experience  of  the  people  of  God,  we  are 
called  upon  to  believe  that  "  honest  intention"  is  the  whole  of 
duty  and  religion  ;  if  we  have  that,  we  are  perfect.  If  this  is  a 
false  doctrine,  no  one  can  fail  to  see  what  its  effects  must  be. 
If  a  man  thinks  himself  perfect,  if  he  says,  I  am  rich,  and  in- 
creased with  goods,  and  have  need  of  nothing  ;  and  knows  not 
that  he  is  wretched,  and  miserable,  and  poor,  and  blind,  and 
naked,  his  situation  is  most  deplorable.  Mr.  Finney  is  well 
aware  that  his  doctrine  changes  the  whole  nature  of  religion ; 
and  hence  his  frequent  denunciations  of  the  false  philosophy 
and  pretended  orthodoxy,  by  which  religion  has  been  perverted 
and  the   church   corrupted.     And   certain   it   is   that   religion, 


284      FINNEY  S  LECTUEES  ON  THEOLOGY. 

as  represented  by  him,  is  something  exceedingly  different  from 
what  good  people  in  all  ages  have  commonly  regarded  it.  We 
should  have  to  provide  a  new  language,  new  hymns,  new 
prayers,  and  especially  a  new  Bible.  It  is  useless  however 
to  continue  these  remarks.  If  a  man  can  believe  that  every 
human  being  is  either  perfectly  sinful  or  perfectly  holy,  he  can 
believe  anything.  And  a  theory  that  leads  to  this  conclusion, 
is  thereby  exploded,  and  its  fragments  are  not  worth  looking 
after. 

Of  course  Mr.  Finney  teaches  that  fuU  or  perfect  obedience 
to  the  moral  law  is  the  condition  of  salvation,  now  and  ever. 
There  is  not  a  passage  in  the  Bible,  he  says,  which  intimates 
that  men  are  saved  or  justified  "  upon  conditions  short  of  per- 
sonal holiness  or  a  return  to  full  obedience  to  the  moral  law." 
P.  366.  Any  man,  therefore,  conscious  of  coming  short  of  pej- 
fection,  has  sure  evidence  that  he  is  not  justified,  "  As  the  moral 
law  is  the  law  of  nature,  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  entire 
obedience  to  it  should  not  be  the  unalterable  condition  of  salva- 
tion." P.  364.  Kegeneration  therefore  is  declared  to  be  "  an  in- 
stantaneous CHANGE  FROM  ENTIRE  SINFULNESS  TO  ENTIRE  HOLI- 
NESS."   P.  500. 

This  work  has  interested  us  principally  on  two  accounts. 
First,  as  an  illustration  of  the  abject  slavery  to  which  the  under- 
standing, when  divorced  from  the  Bible,  and  from  the  other  con- 
stituents of  our  nature,  reduces  those  who  submit  themselves  to 
its  authority.  One  should  think  that  history  furnished  examples 
enough  of  the  consequences  of  following  such  a  guide,  to  deter 
others  from  repeating  the  experiment.  Secondly,  Mr.  Finney's 
book  is  the  best  refutation  that  can  well  be  given  of  the  popular 
theology  current  in  many  parts  of  our  country.  How  long  have 
we  been  accustomed  to  hear  that  inability  is  incompatible  with 
obligation,  and  that  happiness  is  the  highest  good.  Grrant  Mr. 
Finney  these  principles,  and  he  need  ask  you  no  further  favors. 
You  must  foUow  him  to  all  his  conclusions.  He  has  had  the 
strength  and  the  boldness  to  carry  them  out  to  their  legitimate 
consequences.  And  here  they  are.  You  must  either  take  them, 
or  give  up  the  principles  whence  they  flow.  We  heartily  thank 
our  author  for  having  brought  matters  to  this  alternative. 


rx. 
SUPPORT  OF  THE  CLERGY.' 

This  suggestive  and  teeming  pamphlet  has  now  been  several 
months  before  the  churches,  and  we  presume  in  the  hands  of 
almost  all  our  ministers.  We  cannot  suffer  ourselves  to  think 
that  so  much  practical  wisdom,  enforced  by  the  earnest  eloquence 
of  Chalmers,  can  fail  to  influence  for  good  a  multitude  of  minds. 
We  may  not  immediately  see  its  effects,  but  the  principles  here 
suggested,  the  plans  proposed,  and  the  motives  urged,  must  com- 
mend themselves  to  the  judgment  and  conscience  of  the  readers, 
and  must  induce  them  to  act,  or  at  least  prepare  them  to  act 
with  greater  intelligence  and  zeal,  in  the  prosecution  of  the  vari- 
ous enterprises  in  which,  as  a  church,  we  are  engaged. 

We  propose  to  select  from  the  numerous  topics  here  discussed, 
the  support  of  the  clergy,  as  a  subject  of  a  few  remarks.  That 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  church  to  sustain  those  who  are  engaged  in 
preaching  the  gospel  is  not  a  disputed  point.  The  apostle  rests 
this  obligation  on  the  following  grounds.  1.  The  general  princi- 
ple that  labor  is  entitled  to  a  reward,  or,  as  our  Saviour  expresses 
it,  the  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire.  This  principle  the  apostle 
i-eminds  us,  is  recognized  in  all  the  departments  of  human  life, 
and  has  the  sanction  of  the  law  of  God  in  its  application  even  to 
brutes,  for  it  is  written  :  Thou  shalt  not  muzzle  the  ox  that 
treadeth  out  the  corn.  2.  It  is  a  simple  matter  of  commutative 
justice.  If  we  have  sown  unto  spuitual  things,  is  it  a  great  mat- 
ter that  we  should  reap  your  carnal  things  ?     If  we  do  you  a 

*  An  Earnest  Appeal  to  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  on  the  subject  of  Economics.  By 
Thomas  Chalmers,  D.D.  First  American  from  the  Second  Edinburgh  Edition. 
Philadelphia:  Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication.  1847.  Pp.  64. — Princeton  Re- 
view, July,  1847. 


286  SUPPORT  OF  THE  CLERGY. 

great  good,  is  it  unreasonable  to  expect  you  to  do  us  a  less  ?  3. 
In  all  countries,  and  under  all  forms  of  religions,  true  or  false, 
those  who  minister  at  the  altar  are  partakers  with  the  altar.  4. 
It  is  an  express  ordinance  of  Christ  that  they  which  preach  the 
gospel  should  live  by  the  gospel. 

It  is  not,  however,  every  one  who  preaches  the  gospel,  who  is 
entitled  to  the  benefit  of  this  ordinance.  In  many  cases  men, 
who  by  profession  are  lawyers,  merchants,  or  mechanics,  are  at 
the  same  time  preachers.  Preaching,  however,  is  not  their  voca- 
tion ;  it  is  not  the  work  to  which  their  time  and  talents  are 
devoted.  It  is  a  service  in  which  they  occasionally  engage  as 
opportunity  offers  without  interrupting  their  ordinary  engage- 
ments. It  is  evident  that  such  men,  however  laudable  their  mo- 
tives, or  however  useful  their  labors,  are  not  entitled  by  the 
ordinance  of  Christ  to  live  by  the  gospel.  Others,  who  by  pro- 
fession are  preachers,  who  have  been  educated  and  ordained  in 
reference  to  the  sacred  office,  are  at  the  same  time  something 
else,  teachers,  farmers,  or  planters.  They  unite  with  their  voca- 
tion as  preachers  some  lucrative  secular  employment.  Some- 
times this  is  a  matter  of  choice  ;  more  frequently  perhaps,  of 
necessity  ;  sometimes,  as  in  the  case  of  Paul,  of  disinterested 
self-denial,  that  they  may  make  the  gospel  of  Christ  without 
charge.  No  one  can  doubt  that  there  may  be  excellent  and  ade- 
quate reasons  why  a  preacher  should  be  a  teacher  or  a  farmer. 
Nor  can  it  be  questioned  that  every  one  has  a  right  to  judge  of 
those  reasons  for  himself,  and  to  determine  whether  he  will  sup- 
port himself,  or  throw  himself  on  the  ordinance  of  Christ.  But 
he  cannot  do  both.  He  cannot  support  himself  and  claim  the 
right  to  be  supported  by  the  church.  He  throws  himself  out  of 
the  scope  of  the  ordinance  in  question  by  devoting  his  time  and 
talents  to  the  work  of  self-support.  The  plain  scriptural  prin- 
ciple is,  that  those  who  devote  themselves  to  the  service  of  the 
church,  have  a  right  to  be  supported  by  the  church  ;  that  those 
who  consecrate  themselves  to  preaching  the  gospel  are  entitled 
to  live  by  the  gospel.  As  this  is  a  truth  so  plainly  taught  in 
the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  so  generally  conceded,  it  need  not  be 
discussed. 

A  much  more  difficult  question  is  :  What  is  the  best  method 
of  sustaining  the  ministers  of  religion  ?  In  attempting  to  answer 
this  question,  we  propose  first  to   state  historically  and  very 


SUPPORT  OF  THE  CLERGY.  287 

briefly  the  different  methods  which  have  been  adopted  for  that 
purpose,  and  secondly  to  show  that  the  duty  in  question  is  a 
duty  common  to  the  whole  church. 

As  to  the  former  of  the  two  points  proposed  for  consideration, 
it  may  be  remarked  that  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  the 
Levites  being  set  apart  for  the  service  of  the  sanctuary,  had 
thirty- five  cities  with  a  circle  of  land  of  a  thousand  cubits  around 
the  walls,  assigned  to  them,  and  a  tithe  of  all  the  produce  of  the 
ground,  of  the  flocks,  and  of  the  herds.  The  priests  were  sup- 
ported by  a  tithe  of  the  portion  paid  the  Levites  ;  by  the  first- 
fruits  which,  according  to  the  Talmudists,  were  in  no  case  to  be 
less  than  tlie  sixtieth  of  the  whole  harvest ;  by  a  certain  portion 
of  the  sacrifices  ofi'ered  on  the  altar ;  by  the  price  paid  for  the 
redemption  of  the  first-born  among  men,  and  of  those  animals 
which  were  not  allowed  to  be  ofi'ered  in  sacrifice.  They  were 
moreover  exempt  from  taxation  and  military  duty.  Such  was 
the  abundant  provision  which  God  ordained  for  the  support  of 
the  ministers  of  religion. 

Under  the  new  dispensation,  our  Lprd,  while  explicitly  enjoin- 
ing the  duty,  left  his  people  free  as  to  the  mode  in  which  it  should 
be  discharged.  From  the  record  contained  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  several  facts  bearing  on  this  subject  may  be  learned. 
First,  that  a  lively  sense  of  the  brotherhood  of  believers  filled  the 
hearts  of  the  early  Christians,  and  was  the  efiect  of  the  presence 
and  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Secondly,  that  in  consequence  of 
this  feeling  of  brotherhood,  they  had  all  things  in  common.  The 
multitude  of  them  that  believed,  we  are  told,  were  of  one  heart 
and  of  one  soul ;  neither  said  any  of  them  that  aught  of  the 
things  which  he  j)ossessed  was  his  own  ;  but  they  had  all  things 
common  ;  neither  was  there  any  among  them  that  lacked.  Acts 
ii.  41,  47.  Such  was  the  efiect  of  the  vivid  consciousness  of  the 
union  of  believers  as  one  body  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  such  is  the 
uniform  tendency  of  that  consciousness,  manifesting  itself  in 
the  same  manner  in  proportion  to  its  strength.  Experience,  how- 
ever, SQon  taught  these  early  Christians  that  they  were  not  per- 
fect, and  that  it  was  not  wise  to  act  in  an  imperfect  and  mixed 
community  on  a  principle  which  is  applicable  only  to  one  really 
pervaded  and  governed  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  As  the  church 
therefore  increased,  and  came  to  include  many  who  were  Chris- 
tians only  in  name,  or  who  had  but  little  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 


288  SUPPORT    OF    THE    CLERGY, 

the  operation  of  this  feeling  of  brotherhood  was  arrested.  It 
would  have  been  destructive  to  act  towards  nominal  as  towards 
real  Christians,  towards  indolent  and  selfish  professors  as  though 
they  were  instinct  with  the  Spirit  of  God.  This  is  the  funda- 
mental error  of  all  the  modern  systems  of  communism.  They 
proceed  on  the  false  assumption  that  men  are  not  depraved. 
They  take  for  granted  that  they  are  disinterested,  faithful,  labo- 
rious. Every  such  system,  therefore,  has  come  to  naught,  and 
must  work  evil  and  only  evil,  until  men  are  really  renewed  and 
made  of  one  heart  and  of  one  soul  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  In  the 
subsequent  history,  therefore,  of  the  apostolic  church,  we  hear  no 
more  of  this  community  of  goods.  The  apostles  never  com- 
manded it.  They  left  the  church  to  act  on  the  principle  that  it 
is  one  only  so  far  as  it  was  truly  one.  They  did  not  urge  the 
outward  expression  a  single  step  beyond  the  inward  reality.  The 
instructive  fact,  however,  remains  on  record  that  the  ejEfusion  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  did  produce  this  lively  sense  of  brotherhood 
among  Christians,  and  a  corresponding  degree  of  liberality. 

A  third  fact  to  be  learned  from  the  history  given  in  the  Acts, 
is  that  the  early  Christians  looked  upon  their  religious  teachers 
as  the  proper  recipients  and  distributors  of  the  common  property 
of  the  church.  They  who  were  the  possessors  of  houses  or  lands 
sold  them  and  brought  the  prices  of  the  things  that  were  sold 
and  laid  them  down  at  the  apostles'  feet ;  and  distribution  was 
made  unto  every  man  according  as  he  had  need.  It  is  obvious 
that  this  arrangement  supposes  an  eminently  pure  state  of  the 
church,  and  would  be  intolerable  in  any  other.  It  is  also  obvious 
that  as  the  church  enlarged,  an  amount  of  secular  care  would 
thus  be  thrown  on  the  ministers  of  religion  utterly  incompatible 
with  due  attention  to  their  spiritual  duties.  A  new  arrangement 
was  therefore  soon  adopted.  The  apostles  said  :  It  is  not  reason- 
able that  we  should  leave  the  word  of  God  to  serve  tables. 
Wherefore,  brethren,  look  ye  out  among  you  seven  men  of  honest 
report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom,  whom  we  may  ap- 
point over  this  business.  An  example  was  thus  early  set  of  con- 
fiding to  laymen,  i.  e.,  to  those  who  do  not  minister  in  word  and 
doctrine,  the  secular  concerns  of  the  church.  And  no  man  can 
estimate  the  evil  which  in  subsequent  ages  flowed  from  the 
neglect  of  this  example.  If  in  human  governments,  it  is  consid- 
ered essential  to  the  liberty  and  welfare  of  the  people,  that  the 


SUPPORT     OF     THE    CLERGY.  289 

sword  and  purse  should  be  in  different  hands  ;  it  is  no  less  es- 
sential that  in  the  church  the  sword  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the 
word  of  God,  sharper  than  any  two-edged  sword,  and  the  money- 
power  should  not  he  united.  It  was  this  union  which  proved  in 
after  ages  one  of  the  most  effectual  causes  of  the  secular  power 
of  the  clergy  and  of  the  corruption  of  the  church. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  is  plain  that  during  the  lives  of 
the  apostles,  the  ministry  was  sustained  by  the  voluntary  contri- 
butions of  the  churches.  As  the  church  increased  and  became 
more  compact  as  a  visible  society,  this  matter  assumed  a  more 
regular  shape.  It  seems  from  the  beginning  to  have  been  the 
custom  for  the  believers  to  bring  certain  gifts  or  offerings  when- 
ever they  assembled  for  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  A 
custom  which  in  one  form  or  another  is  continued  in  most 
churches,  our  own  among  the  number,  to  the  present  time.  As 
in  the  early  church  the  Lord's  Supper  appears  to  have  been  a 
part  of  the  regular  seiTice  of  every  Lord's  day,  those  contributions 
were  of  course  weekly.  Besides  this,  there  was  from  a  very  early 
period  a  regular  and  larger  contribution  made  every  month.  It 
appears  also  that  the  early  Christians  inferred  from  the  identity 
of  the  church  under  the  two  dispensations,  that  it  was  no  less 
the  duty  of  the  people  of  God  now  than  fbrmerly  to  devote  the  ' 
first-fruits  of  the  earth  and  a  tenth  of  their  income  to  his  service. 
Long  before  the  payment  of  tithes  was  enforced  by  law,  it  had 
thus  become  a  common  and  voluntary  usage.  All  these  contri- 
butions were,  in  each  church,  thrown  into  a  common  stock  under 
the  control  first  of  the  deacons,  afterwards  of  the  pastor.  The 
amount  of  the  sum  thus  raised  of  course  varied  greatly  with  the 
size  and  wealth  of  the  several  churches.  And  as  the  pastors  of 
the  chief  towns  gradually  became  prelates,  having  many  asso- 
ciated and  dependent  congregations  connected  with  the  metropol- 
itan church,  this  common  fund  was  divided  into  three  portions, 
one  for  the  bishop,  one  for  the  clergy,  and  one  for  the  poor.  The 
bishop  gradually  acquired  the  control  of  this  fund,  and  in  the 
Synod  of  Antioch,  A.D.,  341,  his  right  to  its  management  was 
distinctly  asserted.  Thus  also  in  what  are  called  the  Apostohc 
Constitutions,  can.  41,  the  right  of  the  bishop  in  this  matter  is 
placed  on  the  ground  that  he  who  is  entrusted  with  the  care  of 
souls  may  well  be  trusted  with  their  money.    Si  animse  hominum 

19 


290  SUPPORT    OF     THE    CLERGY. 

precios«e  Episcopo  sunt  creditae,  multo  majus  oportet  eum 
curam  pecunianira  gerere. 

When  the  Roman  emperor  became  a  Christian  and  made 
Christianity  the  religion  of  the  state,  the  state  assumed  the  re- 
sponsibility of  supporting  the  ministers  and  institutions  of  religion. 
This  has  been  done  in  various  ways  :  1.  By  the  permanent  grant 
of  productive  property  to  the  church,  and  by  authorizing  the 
acquisition  of  such  property  by  donations,  bequest,  or  purchase. 

2.  By 'ordaining  the  payment  of  tithes  and  other  contributions. 

3.  By  empowering  every  parish  to  tax  itself  for  the  support  of 
religion,  and  giving  to  such  taxation  the  force  of  law.  This  was 
the  method  so  long  in  use  in  New  England.  4.  By  direct  appro- 
priations from  the  public  treasury  in  payment  of  the  salaries  of 
ministers,  just  as  other  public  officers  are  paid.  This  is  the 
method  adopted  in  France  since  the  revolution. 

In  those  countries  in  which  the  church  and  state  are  not  united, 
the  former  is  supported  either  by  what  may  be  called  ecclesiastical 
law,  or  by  voluntary  contributions  of  its  members.  The  Romish 
church  in  Ireland  aifords  an  example  of  the  former  of  these 
methods.  With  the  peculiar  wisdom  of  silence  for  which  that 
church  is  remarkable,  it  contrives  to  raise  from  that  impoverished 
*  people  an  adequate  support  for  its  hierarchy  and  priesthood.  The 
priests  are  supported  by  the  imposition  of  a  regular  contribution 
upon  all  his  parishoners,  payable  twice  in  the  year,  at  stated 
times  ;  and  by  a  regular  tariff  of  charges  for  spiritual  services, 
such  as  baptism,  absolution,  the  mass,  extreme  unction,  and 
burial.  The  bishops  derive  their  income  from  an  annual  contri- 
bution of  ten  pounds  sterling  from  every  priest  in  their  diocese, 
and  by  holding  as  rectors  some  of  the  most  important  of  the 
parishes.  In  this  way,  by  the  stringent  coercion  of  spiritual 
power,  an  income  more  regularly  paid  than  tax  or  rent,  is  readily 
secured. 

Where  the  ministry  is  supported  by  the  voluntary  contributions 
of  the  people,  it  is  done  by  the  contributions  of  the  particular 
congregation  which  the  preacher  serves,  or  from  a  common  fund, 
or  by  a  combination  of  the  two  methods.  There  are,  therefore, 
three  general  methods  by  which  the  support  of  the  clergy  has 
been  provided  for.  1.  Voluntary  contributions.  2.  Endowments 
and  the  law  of  the  land.  3.  By  ecclesiastical  law.  In  this 
country  it  is  not  an  open  question,  which  of  these  methods  ought 


SUPPORT  OF  THE  CLERGY.  291 

to  be  adopted.  We  are  shut  up  to  the  first.  And  happily,  public 
sentiment  both  in  the  church  and  out  of  it,  has  sanctioned  as  the 
best,  the  only  method  which  in  our  case  is  practicable. 

Admitting  that  in  this  country  the  ministry  must  be  supported 
by  the  voluntary  contributions  of  the  people,  the  particular 
question  to  wliich  we  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  our  readers  is  : 
on  whom  does  the  responsibility  of  furnishing  that  support  rest  ? 
Does  it  rest  on  the  individual  congregation,  which  the  minister 
serves,  or  upon  the  church  as  one,  and  the  church  as  a  whole  ? 
Our  object  is  to  show  that  the  obligation  rests  upon  the  church 
as  a  whole.  To  prevent  misapprehension,  however,  it  is  proper 
to  state  :  that  nothing  so  visionary  as  that  every  minister  in 
every  part  of  the  country  should  receive  the  same  salary  is  con- 
templated. This  would  be  at  once  unjust  and  impracticable. 
Much  less  that  there  should  be  any  permanent  fund  from  the 
interest  of  which  all  salaries  should  be  paid.  The  principle 
which  we  wish  to  establish  would  be  fully  satisfied,  if  our  Board 
of  Missions,  instead  of  giving  a  tantalizing  pittance,  were  author- 
ized and  enabled  to  give  an  adequate  support  to  every  minister 
in  its  service,  devoted  to  his  work,  i.  e.,  not  engaged  in  any  secular 
employment,  but  consecrating  his  whole  time  to  the  service  of  the 
church. 

The  first  argument  in  support  of  the  position  here  assumed, 
is  drawn  from  the  nature  of  the  church.  If  according  to  the 
fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Independents,  believers  are  the 
materials  of  a  church,  but  a  covenant  its  form;  if  a  number  of 
Christians  become  a  church  by  covenanting  to  meet  together  for 
worship  and  discipline  ;  if  a  church  owes  its  existence  to  this 
mutual  covenant  just  as  a  city  owes  its  existence  to  its  charter, 
so  that  we  may  as  well  talk  of  an  universal  city  as  of  a  church 
catholic,  then  there  is  no  room  for  the  discussion  of  this  question. 
No  one  would  think  of  contending  that  the  obHgation  to  support 
the  municipal  officers  of  any  one  city,  rests  on  the  inhabitants  of 
all  other  cities.  If,  therefore,  the  relation  which  one  congi-ega- 
tion  bears  to  all  others  of  the  same  communion,  is  the  same  which 
one  city  bears  to  other  cities,  then  of  course  every  congregation 
is  bound  to  take  care  of  itself,  and  is  under  no  obligation,  other 
than  that  of  general  benevolence,  to  sustain  the  ministry  in  other 
congregations,  any  more  than  the  people  of  Philadelphia  are  bound 
to  support  the  mayor  of  New  York.     But  such  is  not  the  scrip- 


292        SUPPORT  or  the  clergy, 

tural,  it  is  not  the  Presbyterian  idea  of  the  church.  It  is  not 
the  idea  which  has  been  living  and  active  in  the  minds  of  all 
Christians  from  the  beginning.  Every  believer  feels  that  he  has 
a  church  relation  to  every  other  believer  ;  that  he  is  a  member 
of  the  same  body,  partaker  of  the  same  Spirit,  that  he  has  with 
them  a  common  faith,  hope,  and  Lord,  and  that  in  virtue  of  this 
union,  he  is  under  the  obligation  of  communion,  obedience,  and 
fellowship  in  all  things,  to  believers  as  such,  and  consequently  to 
all  believers. 

There  are  certain  principles  relating  to  the  nature  of  the 
church,  which  though  generally  admitted  in  theory,  are  seldom 
fairly  carried  out  in  practice.  Of  these  principles,  among  the 
most  important  are  the  following :  1.  That  the  church  is  one. 
There  is  one  kingdom  of  Christ,  one  fold  of  which  he  is  the 
shepherd,  one  body  of  which  he  is  the  head.  2.  That  union  with 
Christ  is  the  condition  of  unity  in  the  church.  We  are  one 
body  in  Christ  Jesus,  i.  e.,  in  virtue  of  our  union  with  him  ;  and 
consequently  the  church  consists  of  all  who  are  in  Christ.  3. 
That  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  dwells  without  measure  in  Christ,  and 
from  him  is  communicated  to  all  his  people,  is  the  bond  of  union 
between  them  and  him,  and  between  the  constituent  members  of 
his  body.  4.  That  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  in  the  members 
of  the  church,  as  it  is  the  ultimate  ground  of  its  unity,  so  it  is 
the  cause  or  source  of  outward  union  in  all  its  legitimate  forms. 
The  church  is  or  ought  to  be  one  in  faith,  in  communion,  in 
worship,  in  organization,  and  obedience,  just  so  far  and  no  farther 
than  the  indwelling  Spirit  is  productive  of  such  union.  5.  There 
are  certain  duties  which  necessarily  arise  out  of  this  relation  of 
believers  to  each  other  as  members  of  the  same  church,  and 
which  are  coextensive  with  the  relation  out  of  which  they  spring. 
Among  those  duties  are  sympathy  and  mutual  assistance.  It  is 
because  believers  are  members  of  one  body  that  they  are  expefcted 
to  sympathize  with  one  another  just  as  the  hand  sympathizes 
with  the  foot,  or  the  eye  with  the  ear  in  the  natural  body.  It  is 
because  believers  are  the  organs  and  temples  of  the  Holy  G-host 
that  we  are  commanded  to  obey  one  another,  in  the  fear  of  the 
Lord,  to  bring  our  complaints  to  the  church,  and  to  hear  the 
church  on  pain  of  being  considered  heathen  men  and  pubhcans. 
It  is  because  we  are  all  brethren,  oIkeXoi  rfjg  TrlaTeag,  that  we  are 
bound  to  bear  one  another's  burdens,  and  to  distribute  to  tho 


SUPPORT  OF  THE  CLERGY.  293 

necessities  of  the  saints.  These  are  duties  we  owe  to  believers 
as  such,  and  therefore  not  to  those  only  who  may  live  in  the 
same  place  with  us,  or  worship  with  us  in  the  same  house. 
Proximity  of  residence  or  association  in  worship,  is  not  the  ground 
of  these  obligations.  They  are  founded  on  a  far  higher  relation, 
a  relation  which  exists  between  all  the  members  of  Christ's  body, 
and  therefore  they  bind  every  member  to  all  his  fellow  members. 

This  being  the  true  idea  of  the  church,  it  follows  that  if  per- 
fectly reahzed,  all  Christians  would  be  united  in  one  ecclesiasti- 
cal body.  That  consummation  is  now  hindered  by  their  imper- 
fection. Though  one  in  faith,  it  is  only  within  the  narrow 
limits  of  essential  doctrines.  Though  one  in  affection,  it  is  not 
with  that  full  confidence  and  cordiality  necessary  for  harmonious 
action  in  the  same  external  society.  So  long  therefore  as  the 
inward  unity  of  the  church  is  imperfect,  its  outward  union  must 
be  in  like  manner  imperfect.  This  admission,  however,  does  not 
imply  that  outward  disunion  is  itself  a  good  ;  or  that  unity 
ought  not  to  be  outwardly  expressed  as  far  as  it  really  exists. 
Consequently  those  who  are  one  in  Spirit ;  whose  views  as  to 
doctrine,  worship,  and  discipline,  are  such  as  to  admit  of  their 
harmonious  co-operation,  are  bound  to  unite  as  one  outward  or 
visible  church. 

It  is  universally  admitted  that  those  who  are  united  in  the 
same  visible  church  owe  certain  duties  to  each  other.  In  other 
words,  there  are  certain  duties  which  rest  upon  them  as  a  church. 
It  is  also  admitted  that  the  support  of  the  ministry  is  one  of 
those  duties.  If,  therefore,  the  church  is  nothing  and  can  be 
nothing  beyond  a  single  congregation,  then  that  duty  and  all 
others  of  a  like  kind  which  rest  upon  the  church  as  such,  are 
limited  to  the  bounds  of  the  congregation.  The  obligation  of 
obedience  does  not  extend  beyond  the  list  of  their  fellow  worship- 
pers in  the  same  house.  The  obligation  to  support  the  ministry 
is  confined  to  their  own  immediate  pastor.  But  if  the  church 
consists  of  aU  believers,  then  the  whole  body  of  believers  stand 
in  the  relation  of  church-membership,  and  the  duties  of  obedience 
and  mutual  aid  in  the  discharge  of  all  ecclesiastical  obhgations 
rest  on  the  whole  united  body  ;  that  is,  on  all  who  recognize  each 
other  as  members  of  the  same  church.  It  foUows,  therefore, 
from  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  church,  that  the  obligation  to 
provide  the  means  of  grace  for  the  whole  church,  rests  on  the 


294  SUPPORT  OF  THE  CLERGY. 

church  as  a  whole,  and  not  merely  or  exclusively  on  each  separate 
congregation  for  itself. 

The  second  argument  in  support  of  this  doctrine  is  derived 
from  the  commission  given  to  the  church.  Christ  said  to  his 
disciples  :  Go  into  all  the  world  and  make  disciples  of  all  nations. 
The  prerogative  and  duty  here  enjoined,  is  to  teach  all  nations. 
For  the  discharge  of  this  duty  the  ministry  was  appointed.  Christ 
in  the  first  instance,  personally,  and  afterwards  by  his  Spirit, 
calls  and  qualifies  certain  men  to  be  organs  and  agents  of  the 
church  in  the  great  work  of  teaching  the  nations.  To  whom 
then  was  this  commission  given  ?  On  whom  does  the  obligation 
of  discharging  the  duty  it  enjoins  rest  ?  Not  on  the  apostles 
alone — not  on  the  ministry  alone — but  on  the  whole  church. 
This  is  indeed  a  very  important  point,  much  debated  between 
Romanists  and  Protestants.  It  must  be  here  taken  for  granted, 
that  neither  prelates  nor  presbyters  are  the  church,  but  that  God's 
people  are  the  church,  and  that  to  the  chuch  as  such,  to  the 
church  as  a  whole,  to  the  church  as  one,  was  this  great  commis- 
sion given.  It  was  originally  addressed  to  a  promiscuous  assembly 
of  believers.  The  power  and  the  promise  which  it  conveyed, 
were  connected  with  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  presence 
of  the  Spirit  was  the  source  at  once  of  the  power  here  conferred, 
and  of  the  qualifications  necessary  for  the  discharge  of  the  duty 
here  enjoined.  And  as  the  Spirit  was  not  given  to  the  apostles, 
prelates,  or  presbyters  as  a  distinct  class,  and  to  the  exclusion  of 
others,  so  neither  was  the  commission  which  was  founded  on  the 
gift  of  the  Spirit  confined  to  them.  The  power,  the  duty,  and 
the  promise  of  the  Spirit  all  go  together.  Unless,  therefore,  we 
adopt  the  Romish  doctrine  that  the  Spirit  was  given  to  the 
apostles  as  a  distinct  and  self-perpetuating  order  in  the  church, 
to  flow  mechanically  through  the  channel  of  that  succession,  a 
living  stream  through  a  dead  body,  we  must  admit  that  the  com- 
mission in  question  was  given  to  the  whole  church.  All  the  pre- 
rogatives, duties,  and  promises  which  it  conveys,  belong  to  the 
church  as  a  living  body  pervaded  in  all  its  parts  by  the  life-giving 
and  life-impelling  Spirit  of  God.  This,  however,  does  not  imply 
that  there  is  no  order  or  subordination  in  the  church  ;  or  that 
there  is  no  diversity  in  the  gifts,  graces,  and  ofiices  which  the 
Spirit  divides  to  each  one  severally  as  he  wills.  All  are  not 
apostles,  all  are  not  prophets,  or  teachers,  or  workers  of  miracles. 


SUPPORT  OF  THE  CLERGY.  295 

Grod  is  not  the  author  of  confusion,  but  of  order  and  peace  in  all 
the  churches  of  the  saints.  The  absence  of  order,  subordination 
and  peace  in  any  body  is  an  evidence  of  the  absence  of  the  Spirit 
of  God.  The  Protestant  doctrine  that  the  commission  so  often 
referred  to,  was  given  to  the  whole  church,  is  therefore  perfectly 
consistent  with  the  existence  and  prerogatives  of  the  ministry, 
not  only  as  a  work,  but  as  an  office. 

The  application  of  the  Protestant  doctrine  just  stated,  to  the 
subject  before  us,  is  obvious  and  direct.  If  to  the  church  as  such 
and  as  a  whole,  the  duty  of  teaching  all  nations  has  been  com- 
mitted, then  upon  the  church  as  a  whole  rests  the  obligation  to 
sustain  those  who  are  divinely  commissioned  in  her  name  and  as 
her  organs  for  the  immediate  discharge  of  that  duty.  On  what 
other  ground  do  we  appeal  to  all  our  members,  young  and  old, 
male  and  female,  to  send  forth  and  sustain  our  missionaries,  for- 
eign and  domestic  ?  We  do  not  merely  say  to  them  that  this  is 
a  duty  of  benevolence  or  of  Christian  charity,  but  we  tell  them 
it  is  a  command  of  Christ,  a  command  addressed  to  them,  which 
binds  their  conscience,  which  they  cannot  neglect  without  re- 
nouncing the  authority  of  Christ,  and  thereby  proving  that  they 
are  destitute  of  his  Spirit  and  are  none  of  his.  In  doing  this, 
we  certainly  do  right  ;  but  we  obviously  take  for  granted  that 
since  the  commission  to  teach  all  nations  has  been  given  to  the 
whole  church,  the  duty  of  supporting  those  sent  forth  as  teach- 
ers rests  upon  the  whole  church  as  a  common  burden.  The  com- 
mand therefore  which  binds  us  to  support  the  gospel  in  New 
Jersey  binds  us  to  sustain  it  in  Wisconsin.  All  the  reasons  of 
the  obligation  apply  to  the  one  case  as  well  as  to  the  other.  And 
we  miserably  fail  of  obedience  to  Christ  if  we  content  ourselves 
with  supporting  our  own  pastors,  and  let  others  provide  for  them- 
selves or  perish,  as  they  see  fit. 

A  third  consideration  which  leads  to  the  conclusion  for  which 
we  are  now  contending  is,  that  the  ministry  pertains  to  the 
whole  church,  and  not  primarily  and  characteristically  to  each 
particular  congregation.  When  a  man  is  ordained,  the  office 
into  which  he  is  inducted  has  relation  to  the  church  as  a  whole. 
All  the  prerogatives  and  obligations  of  that  office  are  conveyed 
though  he  has  no  separate  congregation  confided  to  his  care.  A 
call  to  a  particular  church  does  not  convey  the  ministerial  office, 
it  only  gives  authority  to  exercise  that  office  over  a  particular 


296  SUPPORT     OF    THE    CLERGY. 

people  and  within  a  given  sphere.  The  office  itself  has  far 
wider  relations.  If  it  were  true  that  the  ministerial  office  has 
relation  primarily  and  essentially  to  a  particular  congregation, 
80  that  a  man  can  no  more  he  a  minister  without  a  congi-egation, 
than  a  husband  without  a  wife  (the  favorite  illustration  of  those 
who  adopt  this  view  of  the  matter),  then  it  would  follow  that  no 
man  is  a  minister  except  to  his  own  congregation,  nor  can  he 
perform  any  ministerial  acts  out  of  his  own  charge  ;  that  he 
ceases  to  be  a  minister  as  soon  as  he  ceases  to  be  a  pastor  ;  and 
that  the  church  has  no  right  to  ordain  men  as  missionaries. 
These  are  not  only  the  logical  conclusions  from  this  doctrine, 
they  were  all  admitted  and  contended  for  by  the  early  and  con- 
sistent Independents.  This  view  is  obviously  unscripturaL 
The  apostle  after  teaching  that  the  church  is  one — one  body 
having  one  Spirit,  one  faith,  one  Lord,  one  baptism,  adds  that  to 
this  one  church,  the  ascended  Saviour  gave  gifts,  viz.,  apostles, 
prophets,  evangelists,  pastors  and  teachers,  for  the  work  of  the 
ministry  and  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ.  The 
apostles,  prophets,  evangehsts,  and  teachers  were  not  given  to 
particular  congregations,  but  to  the  church  generally.  Of  all 
the  preachers  of  the  gospel  named  in  the  New  Testament  it 
would  be  difficult  to  find  one  who  sustained  a  special,  much  less 
an  exclusive  relation  to  any  one  congregation.  Paul  did  not, 
neither  did  Barnabas,  nor  Timothy,  nor  Titus.  That  there 
were  pastors  in  every  church  is  of  course  admitted,  but  even  in 
their  case,  the  relation  they  sustained  was  like  that  of  a  captain 
of  a  single  ship  in  a  large  fleet.  While  each  pastor  had  a  special 
relation  to  his  own  charge,  he  had  a  higher  relation  to  the  whole 
church. 

If  the  doctrine  of  the  Independents  on  this  subject,  were  true, 
it  might  be  plausibly  argued  that  the  obligation  to  support  a 
minister  rested  solely  on  the  congregation  who  enjoys  his  ser- 
vices. It  is  altogether  a  private  aifair,  analogous  to  the  relation 
which  a  man  bears  to  his  own  family.  But  if  the  true  doctrine 
is,  that  the  ministry  belongs  to  the  whole  church  ;  the  whole 
church  is  bound  to  sustain  it.  The  relation  which  the  officers  of 
the  navy  and  army  sustain  to  the  whole  country,  with  propriety 
throws  the  burden  of  their  support  on  the  country  as  a  whole. 
And  such  is  the  relation  which  ministers  sustain  to  the  church. 

A  fourth  argument  on  this  subject  is,  that  all  the  reasons 


SQPPOKT    OF    THE    CLERGY.  297 

■which  are  given  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  to  show  that  the  min- 
istry ought  to  be  supported,  bear  on  the  church  as  one  body. 
Our  Saviour  says  the  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire.  But  in 
whose  service  does  the  minister  labor  ?  Who  gave  him  his 
commission  ?  In  whose  name  does  he  act  ?  Whose  work  is  he 
doing  ?  to  whom  is  he  responsible  ?  Is  it  not  the  church  as  a 
whole,  and  not  this  or  that  particular  congregation  ?  Again,  to 
whose  benefit  do  the  fruits  of  his  labor  redound  ?  When  souls 
are  converted,  saints  edified,  children  educated  in  the  fear  of 
God,  is  this  a  local  benefit  ?  Are  we  not  one  body  ?  Has  the 
hand  no  interest  in  the  soundness,  of  the  foot,  or  the  ear  in  the 
well-being  of  the  eye  ?  It  is  only  on  the  assumption  therefore 
of  a  most  unscriptural  isolation  and  severance  of  the  constituent 
members  of  Christ's  body,  that  the  whole  obligation  to  sustain 
the  ministry  can  be  thrown  on  each  separate  congregation. 
Again,  it  is  an  ordinance  of  Christ  that  those  who  preach  the 
gospel  should  live  by  the  gospel.  This  ordinance  certainly  binds 
those  to  whom  the  gospel  is  given,  to  whose  custody  it  is  com- 
mitted, who  are  charged  with  the  duty  of  sustaining  and  ex- 
tending it ;  who  have  felt  its  power  and  experienced  its  value. 
They  are  the  persons  whom  Christ  honors  by  receiving  gifts  at 
their  hands,  for  the  support  of  his  servants  and  the  promotion  of 
his  kingdom.  Consequently  the  whole  body  of  his  people  have 
by  his  ordinance  this  duty  imposed  on  them  as  a  common  burden 
and  a  common  privilege. 

In  the  fifth  place,  this  matter  may  be  argued  from  the  com- 
mon principles  of  justice.  Our  present  system  is  unjust,  first,  to 
the  people.  Here  are  a  handful  of  Christians  surrounded  by  an 
increasing  mass  of  the  ignorant,  the  erroneous,  and  the  wicked. 
No  one  will  deny  that  it  is  of  the  last  importance  that  the  gospel 
should  be  regularly  administered  among  them.  This  is  demanded 
not  only  for  the  benefit  of  those  few  Christians,  but  for  the  in- 
struction and  conversion  of  the  surrounding  population.  Now 
is  it  just,  that  the  burden  of  supporting  the  ministry  under  these 
circumstances,  should  be  thrown  exclusively  on  that  small  and 
feeble  company  of  believers  ?  Are  they  alone  interested  in  the  sup- 
port and  extension  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  among  themselves  and 
those  around  them  ?  It  is  obvious  that  on  all  scriptural  prin- 
ciples, and  on  all  principles  of  justice,  this  is  a  burden  to  be  borne 
by  the  whole  church,  by  all  on  whom  the  duty  rests  to  uphold 


298  SUPPORT    OF    THE    CLERGY. 

and  propagate  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Our  present  system  is  un- 
just, in  the  second  place,  towards  our  ministers.  It  is  not  just 
that  one  man  should  be  supported  in  affluence,  and  another 
equally  devoted  to  the  ser\dce  of  the  church,  left  to  struggle  for 
the  necessaries  of  life.  As  before  stated,  we  do  not  contend  for 
anything  so  chimerical  as  equal  salaries  to  all  ministers.  Even 
if  all  received  from  the  church  as  a  whole  the  same  sum,  the  peo- 
ple would  claim  and  exercise  the  right  to  give  in  addition  what 
they  pleased  to  their  own  pastor.  We  can  no  more  make  sal- 
aries equal,  than  we  can  make  church  edifices  of  the  same  size 
and  cost.  But  while  this  equality  is  neither  desirable  nor  prac- 
ticable, it  is  obviously  unjust  that  the  present  inordinate  inequal- 
ity should  be  allowed  to  continue.  The  hardship  falls  precisely 
on  the  most  devoted  men  :  on  those  who  strive  to  get  along 
without  resorting  to  any  secular  employment.  Those  who  resort 
to  teaching,  farming,  or  speculating  in  land,  in  many  cases  soon 
render  themselves  independent.  The  way  to  keep  ministers 
poor,  is  to  give  them  enough  to  live  upon.  Observation  in  all 
parts  of  the  country  shows  that  it  is  the  men  with  inadequate 
salaries  who  become  rich,  or  at  least  lay  up  money.  It  is  not 
therefore  because  we  think  that  the  ministry  as  a  body  w^ould 
have  more  of  this  world's  goods  if  adequately  supported  by  the 
church,  that  we  urge  this  plea  of  just  compensation.  It  is  be- 
cause those  who  do  devote  themselves  to  their  ministerial  work, 
are  left  to  contend  with  all  the  harassing  evils  of  poverty, 
while  others  of  their  brethi'en  have  enough  and  to  spare.  This 
we  regard  as  contrary  to  justice,  contrary  to  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
and  the  express  commands  of  his  word.  Let  the  Presbyterian 
church  ask  itself  whether  it  has  ever  obeyed  the  ordinance  of 
Christ,  that  they  who  preach  the  gospel  shall  live  by  the  gospel. 
It  is  obvious  that  this  never  has  been  done.  And  if  we  ask,  why 
not,  we  can  find  no  other  answer  than  that  we  have  not  adopted 
the  right  method.  We  have  left  each  congregation  to  do  the 
best  it  can  ;  the  rich  giving  themselves  little  concern  how  the 
poor  succeed  in  this  necessary  work.  We  do  not  see  how  the 
command  of  Christ  ever  can  be  obeyed,  how  anything  like  jus- 
tice on  this  subject  ever  can  be  done,  until  the  church  recognizes 
the  truth  that  it  is  one  body,  and  therefore  that  it  is  just  as  ob- 
ligatory on  us  to  support  the  gospel  at  a  distance  as  around  our 
own  homes. 


SUPPORT    OF    THE    CLEEGT.  299 

Sixthly,  the  advantages  which  would  be  secured  by  this  plan, 
are  a  strong  argument  in  its  favor.  It  would  secure  a  great  in- 
crease in  the  amount  of  time  and  labor  devoted  to  ministerial 
work.  We  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  with  accuracy  what 
proportion  of  our  ministers  unite  with  their  sacred  office  some 
secular  employment,  nor  what  proportion  of  their  time  is  thus 
diverted  from  their  appropriate  duties  It  may  be  that  one  third 
or  one  half  of  the  time  of  the  ministry  of  our  church,  taken  as  a 
whole,  is  devoted  to  secular  business.  If  this  estimate  is  any 
approximation  to  the  truth,  and  it  has  been  made  by  those  who 
have  had  the  best  opportunity  of  forming  a  correct  judgment, 
then  the  efficiency  of  the  ministry  might  be  well-nigh  doubled 
if  this  time  could  be  redeemed  from  the  world  and  devoted  to 
study,  to  pastoral  duties,  and  the  education  of  the  young. 

Again,  it  would  exert  a  most  beneficial  influence  on  the  char- 
acter of  the  ministry.  How  many  men,  who,  from  necessity,  en- 
gage in  some  secular  work,  gradually  become  worldly-minded, 
lose  their  interest  in  the  spiritual  concerns  of  the  church,  and 
come  to  regard  their  ministerial  duties  as  of  secondary  import- 
ance !  It  is  a  law  of  the  human  mind  that  it  becomes  assimilated 
to  the  objects  to  which  its  attention  is  principally  directed.  It 
is  almost  impossible  for  a  minister,  whose  time  is  mainly  devoted 
to  worldly  business,  to  avoid  becoming  more  or  less  a  worldly 
man,  A  very  respectable  clergyman,  advanced  in  life,  who  had 
felt  this  difficulty,  recently  said  there  was  nothing  about  which 
he  was  more  determined  than  that  if  he  had  his  life  to  live  over 
again,  he  would  never  settle  in  a  congregation  that  did  not  sup- 
port him.  It  is  very  hard  to  draw  the  line  between  gaining  a 
support  and  making  money.  It  is  difficult  to  discriminate  in 
practice  between  what  is  proper,  because  necessary,  and  what  all 
admit  to  be  derogatory  to  the  ministerial  character.  How  often 
does  it  happen  that  the  desire  of  wealth  insinuates  itself  into  the 
heart,  under  the  guise  of  the  desire  for  an  adequate  support. 
Without  the  slightest  impeachment  of  any  class  of  our  brethren, 
in  comparison  with  others,  but  simply  assuming  that  they  are 
like  other  men  and  other  ministers,  it  is  obvious  that  the  neces- 
sity of  devoting  a  large  part  of  their  time  to  secular  employment, 
is  injurious  both  to  their  own  spiritual  interests  and  to  their 
usefulness.  Every  thing,  indeed,  depends  upon  the  motive  with 
which  this  is  done.     If  done  as  a  matter  of  self-denial,  in  order 


300  SUPPORT    OF     THE    CLERGY, 

to  make  the  gospel  of  Christ  without  charge,  its  influence  will 
be  salutary  ;  but  if  done  irom  any  worldly  motive  it  must,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  bring  leanness  into  the  soul.  It  can 
hardly,  therefore,  be  doubted  that  few  things,  under  God,  would 
more  directly  tend  to  exalt  the  standard  of  ministerial  character 
and  activity  in  our  church,  than  a  provision  of  an  adequate  sup- 
port for  every  pastor  devoted  to  his  work.  How  many  of  our  most 
deserving  brethren  would  the  execution  of  this  plan  relieve  from 
anxiety  and  want !  Many  of  them  are  now  without  the  ordinary 
comforts  of  life  ;  harassed  by  family  cares,  oppressed  with  diffi- 
culty as  to  the  means  of  supporting  and  educating  their  children. 
It  would  shed  an  unwonted  light  into  many  a  household,  to  hear 
it  announced  that  the  Presbyterian  church  had  resolved  to  obey 
the  ordinance  of  Christ,  that  they  who  preach  the  gospel  should 
live  by  the  gospel.  Such  a  resolution  would  kindle  the  incense 
in  a  thousand  hearts,  and  would  be  abundant  through  the 
thanksgiving  of  many  to  the  glory  of  God. 

Again,  this  plan  would  secure  stability  and  consequent  power 
to  the  institutions  of  religion  in  a  multitude  of  places,  where 
every  thing  is  now  occasional,  uncertain,  and  changing.  Our 
church  would  be  thus  enabled  to  present  a  firm  and  steadily  ad- 
vancing front.  Congregations  too  feeble  to-day  to  support  the 
gospel  at  all,  would  soon  become,  under  the  steady  culture  thus 
afforded  to  them,  able  to  aid  in  sustaining  others.  A  new  spirit 
of  alacrity  and  confidence  would  be  infused  into  the  ministry. 
They  would  not  advance  with  a  hesitating  step,  doubtful  whether 
those  behind  will  uphold  their  hands.  When  a  missionary  leaves 
our  shores  for  heathen  lands,  he  goes  without  any  misgivings  as 
to  this  point.  He  has  no  fear  of  being  forgot,  and  allowed  to 
struggle  for  his  daily  bread,  while  endeavoring  to  bring  the 
heathen  to  the  obedience  of  Christ.  He  knows  that  the  whole 
church  is  pledged  for  his  support,  and  he  devotes  himself  to  his 
work  without  distraction  or  anxiety.  How  different  is  the  case 
with  multitudes  of  our  missionaries  at  home  !  They  go  to  places 
where  much  is  to  be  done,  where  constant  ministerial  labor  is 
demanded,  but  they  go  with  no  assurance  of  support.  The  jjeo- 
ple  whom  they  serve  may  greatly  need  the  gospel ;  it  ought  to 
be  carried  to  them,  and  urged  upon  them,  but  they  care  Httle 
about  it,  and  are  unwilling  to  sustain  the  messenger  of  God.  The 
church  does  not  charge  itself  with  his  support.     It  is  true  he  is 


SUPPORT  OF  THE  CLERGY.  301 

laboring  in  her  service  and  in  the  service  of  her  Lord,  hut  he  is 
left  to  provide  for  himself,  and  live  or  starve  as  the  case  may  be. 
This  is  not  the  way  in  which  a  church  can  be  vigorously  ad- 
vanced. It  is  not  the  way  in  which  Antichrist  advances  his 
kingdom.  No  Komish  priest  plants  a  hesitating  foot  an  any  un- 
occupied ground.  He  knows  he  represents  a  church  ;  a  body 
which  recognizes  its  unity,  and  feels  its  life  in  all  its  members. 
Is  it  right  that  we  should  place  the  cause  of  Christ  under  such 
disadvantage  ?  that  we  should  adopt  a  plan  of  ministerial  sup- 
port which  of  necessity  makes  the  church  most  feeble  at  the  ex- 
tremities, where  it  ought  to  have  most  alacrity  and  strength  ? 
Truly  the  children  of  this  world  are  wiser  in  their  generation 
than  the  children  of  light. 

The  great  recommendation  of  the  plan  for  which  we  contend, 
is,  that  it  is  right.  And  if  right,  it  must  be  healthful  in  all  its 
influences.  If  the  church  acts  on  the  principle  that  it  is  one, 
it  will  become  one.  If  from  a  conviction  of  the  brotherhood  of 
all  believers,  it  acts  towards  aU  as  brothers,  brotherly  love  will 
abound.  The  sense  of  injustice  which  cannot  fail  on  our  present 
plan  to  corrode  the  feelings  of  our  neglected  brethren,  will  cease 
to  exist.  The  sympathies  of  the  more  prosperous  portions  of  the 
church  will  become  more  enlisted  in  the  welfare  of  those  less 
highly  favored.  By  acting  on  the  principle  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  prescribed  for  the  government  of  the  church,  the  church 
will  become  more  and  more  the  organ  and  dweUing-place  of  that 
Spirit,  who  will  pervade  it  in  all  its  parts  with  the  glow  of  his 
presence,  rendering  it  at  once  pure  and  prosperous,  instinct  with 
the  power  and  radiant  with  the  beauty  of  holiness. 

We  do  not  anticipate  much  opposition  to  the  principles  which 
we  have  attempted  to  advocate.  We  do  not  expect  to  hear  any 
one  deny  the  unity  of  the  church  ;  nor  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
whole  church  to  sustain  and  propagate  the  gospel  ;  nor  that  the 
ministry  belongs  to  the  church  as  one  body  ;  nor  that  every  min- 
ister is  engaged  in  the  service  of  the  wliole  churcli ;  nor  that  it  is 
just,  scriptural,  and  expedient,  that  they  who  preach  the  gospel 
should  live  by  the  gospel.  Nor  do  we  expect  that  any  one  will 
deny  that  it  is  a  logical  sequence  from  these  principles  that  the 
obligation  to  support  the  ministry  rests  as  a  common  burden  on 
the  church  which  that  ministry  serves.  The  objections  which  we 
anticipate  are  principally  these.     First,  that  there  are  many  in- 


302  SUPPOET     OF    THE    CLERGY. 

efficient  men  in  the  ministry  who  ought  not  to  be  supported  by 
the  church,  and  who  need  the  stimulus  of  dependence  on  their 
congregations  to  make  them  work.  In  answer  to  this  objection 
we  would  say,  that  we  believe  the  difficulty  is  greatly  over- 
estimated, and  that  the  inefficiency  complained  of  arises  in  a 
great  measure  from  the  necessity  which  so  many  of  our  ministers 
labor  under  of  providing  for  their  own  support.  There  is  indeed 
no  plan  which  is  not  liable  to  abuse.  But  we  have  in  this  case 
all  the  security  which  other  churches  have  who  act  on  the  prin- 
ciple for  which  we  contend.  We  have  the  security  arising  from 
the  fidelity  of  sessions  in  guarding  admissions  to  the  church  ;  in 
the  judgment  of  presbyteries  in  selecting  and  training  men  for 
the  ministry,  in  ordaining  them  to  the  sacred  office,  and  in 
superintending  them  when  they  come  to  discharge  its  duties. 
We  have  the  security  which  the  Board  of  Missions  now  have  for 
the  fidelity  and  efficiency  of  those  who  are  engaged  in  its  service. 
It  will  be  observed  that  the  plan  contemplated  does  not  propose 
to  render  the  minister  independent  of  his  congregation.  The 
principal  part  of  his  support,  if  a  pastor,  must,  in  most  cases  at 
least,  come  from  them.  It  is  only  proposed  that  the  Board  of 
Missions  should  be  authorized  and  enabled  so  to  enlarge  their 
appropriations  as  to  secure  an  adequate  support  to  every  minis- 
ter devoted  to  his  work. 

A  more  serious  objection  is  the  expense.  In  answer  to  this, 
we  would  ask  whether  it  would  require  as  large  a  portion  of  the 
income  of  believers  as  by  divine  command  was  devoted  to  this 
object  under  the  old  dispensation  ?  Is  the  gospel  of  the  grace 
of  Grod  less  valuable,  or  less  dear  to  our  hearts  than  the  religion 
of  Moses  to  the  hearts  of  the  Israelites  .?  Would  it  require  a 
tithe  of  the  sum  which  the  heathen  pay  for  the  support  of  their 
priests  and  temples  ?  Would  it  cost  Presbyterians  in  America 
more  than  it  costs  Presbyterians  in  Scotland,  or  more  than  it 
costs  our  Methodist  brethren  ?  What  ought  to  be  done  can  be 
done.  What  others  do,  we  can  do.  What  the  cause  needs 
are,  with  the  blessing  of  God,  two  things,  an  intelligent  com- 
prehension of  the  grounds  of  the  duty,  on  the  part  of  the  church, 
and  some  man  or  men  to  take  the  thing  in  hand  and  urge  it 
forward. 


X. 

BUSHNELL  ON  CHRISTIAN  NURTURE.^ 

The  leading  idea  of  Dr.  Bushnell's  Discourses,  is  organic,  as 
distinguished  from  individual  life.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of 
the  expression,  or  whatever  may  be  the  form  in  which  it  lies  in 
his  mind,  it  represents  a  great  and  obvious  truth  ;  a  truth,  which 
however  novel  it  may  appear  to  many  of  our  New  England  breth- 
ren, is  as  familiar  to  Presbyterians  as  household  words.  Strange, 
and  in  our  view  distorted,  as  is  the  form  in  which  this  truth  ap- 
pears in  Dr.  Bushnell's  book,  and  incongruous  as  are  the  elements 
with  which  it  is  combined,  it  still  has  power  to  give  his  Discourses 
very  much  of  an  "  Old-school"  cast,  and  to  render  them  in  a  high 
degree  attractive  and  hopeful  in  our  estimation.  Apart  from  the 
two  great  illustrations  of  this  truth,  the  participation  of  the  life 
of  Adam  by  the  whole  race,  and  of  the  life  of  Christ  by  all 
believers,  we  see  on  every  hand  abundant  evidence  that  every 
church,  nation,  and  society,  has  a  common  life,  besides  the  life  of 
its  individual  members.  This  is  the  reason  why  nothing  of  im- 
portance can  occur  in  one  part  of  the  church  without  influencing 
all  other  parts.  No  new  form  of  doctrine,  no  revival  or  decline 
of  spiritual  life  can  exhibit  itself  in  New  England,  that  is  not 
effective  throughout  the  Presbyterian  church.  We  as  a  body  owe, 
in  no  small  measure,  our  character  as  distinguished  from  other 
Presbyterian  communities  to  our  participation,  so  to  speak,  of  the 

1 1.  Discourses  on  Christian  Nurture.  By  Horace  Bushnell,  Pastor  of  the  North 
Church,  Hartford.  Approved  by  the  Committee  of  Pabhcation.  Boston :  Massachu- 
setts Sabbath  School  Society.     1847.     12mo.     pp.  72. 

2.  Dr.  Tyler's  Letter  to  Dr.  BtishneU  on  Christian  Nurture.     8vo.     pp.  22. 

3.  An  argument  for  "Discourses  on  Christian  Nurture,"  addressed  to  the  Publishing 
Committee  of  the  Massachusetts  Sabbath  School  Society.  By  Horace  Busiinell. 
Hartford:   Edwin  Hunt.     1847.    8vo.     pp.  48. — Princeton  Review,  October,  1847. 


304  BUSHNELL     ON     CHRISTIAN    NURTURE, 

life  of  New  England  ;  and  the  New  England  churches  are  in- 
debted, in  like  manner,  for  their  character  as  distinguished  from 
other  Congregational  bodies,  to  the  influence  of  their  Presbyterian 
brethren.  No  community  can  isolate  itself.  The  subtle  influ- 
ence which  pervades  the  whole,  permeates  through  every  barrier, 
as  little  suspected  and  yet  as  effective  as  the  magnetic  or  electric 
fluid  in  nature.  This  fact  may  be  explained  in  a  manner  more 
or  less  obvious  or  profound  according  to  our  philosophy  or  disposi- 
tion, but  it  cannot  be  denied,  and  should  not  be  disregarded. 

We  are,  therefore,  not  uninterested  spectators  of  the  changes 
going  on  in  New  England.  They  are  changes  in  the  body  of 
which  we  are  members,  and  their  efl'ects  for  good  or  evil  we  must 
share.  We  are  not  therefore  stepping  out  of  our  own  sphere,  or 
meddling  with  what  does  not  concern  us,  in  calling  attention  to 
Dr.  Bushnell's  book,  and  to  the  discussions  to  which  it  has  given 
rise. 

The  history  of  this  little  volume  is  somewhat  singular.  Dr. 
Bushnell  was  appointed  by  the  Ministerial  Association,  of  which 
he  is  a  member,  to  discuss  tlie  subject  of  Christian  training.  He 
produced  two  discourses  from  his  pulpit,  and  read  the  argument 
before  the  Association,  who  requested  its  publication.  To  this 
he  assented,  but  before  his  purpose  was  executed,  a  request  came 
from  a  member  of  the  Committee  of  the  Massachusetts  Sabbath 
School  Society,  that  the  publication  should  be  made  by  them. 
The  manuscript  was  forwarded  to  the  committee  who  retained  it 
in  their  possession  six  months,  twice  returned  it  to  the  author  for 
modifications,  and  finally  published  it  with  their  approbation.  It 
excited  no  little  attention,  being  favorably  noticed  in  some  quar- 
ters, and  unfavorably  in  others.  So  much  disapprobation,  how- 
ever, was  soon  manifested,  that  the  committee  felt  called  upon  to 
suspend  its  publication.  We  are  not  surprised  at  any  of  these 
facts.  We  do  not  wonder  that  the  committee  kept  the  book  so 
long  under  advisement ;  or  that  they  should  ultimately  venture 
on  its  publication  ;  or  that  when  published,  it  should  create  such 
a  sensation,  or  meet  with  the  fate  which  actually  befel  it.  There 
is  enough  in  the  book  to  account  for  all  this.  Enough  of  truth 
most  appropriate  for  our  times,  powerfully  presented,  to  make 
the  committee  anxious  to  bring  it  before  the  churches  ;  enough 
of  what  was  new  in  form  and  strange  in  aspect,  to  create  doubt 
as  to  its  effect  and  its  reception  ;  and  enough  of  apparent  and 


BUSHNELL    ON    CHRISTIAN    NURTURE.  305 

formidable  error  to  account  for  the  alarm  and  uneasiness  conse- 
quent on  its  publication.  We  cannot  regret  that  the  book  has 
seen  the  light,  and  done,  or  at  least  begun,  its  work.  We  antici- 
pate immeasurably  more  good  than  evil  from  its  publication. 
What  is  wrong,  we  trust  will  be  sifted  out  and  perish,  what  is 
right,  will  live  and  operate. 

The  truths  which  give  value  to  this  publication,  and  from 
which  we  anticipated  such  favorable  results,  are  principally  the 
following  :  First,  the  fact  that  there  is  such  a  divinely  constitu- 
ted relation  between  the  piety  of  parents  and  that  of  their  chil- 
dren, as  to  lay  a  scriptural  foundation  for  a  confident  expectation, 
in  the  use  of  the  appointed  means,  that  the  children  of  believers 
will  become  truly  the  children  of  God.  We  do  not  like  the  form 
in  which  Dr.  Bushnell  states  this  fact ;  much  less,  as  we  shall 
probably  state  more  fully  in  the  sequel,  the  mode  in  which  he 
accounts  for  it  ;  but  the  fact  itself  is  most  true  and  precious.  It 
is  founded  on  the  express  and  repeated  declaration  and  promise 
of  God.  He  said  to  Abraham  :  I  will  establish  my  covenant  be- 
tween me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations, 
for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed 
after  thee.  Deut.  vii.  9.  Know,  therefore,  that  Jehovah  thy 
God,  he  is  God,  the  faithful  God,  which  keepeth  covenant  and 
mercy  with  them  that  love  him  and  keep  his  commandments,  to 
a  thousand  generations.  Deut.  xxxix.  6.  The  Lord  thy  God 
will  circumcise  thy  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the 
Lord  thy  God,  with  aU  thine  heart  and  with  all  thy  soul,  that 
thou  mayest  live.  Isa.  lix.  21.  As  for  me  this  is  my  covenant 
with  them,  saith  the  Lord  :  my  Spirit  that  is  upon  thee  and  my 
words  which  I  have  put  in  thy  mouth,  shall  not  depart  out  of 
thy  mouth,  nor  out  of  the  mouth  of  thy  seed,  nor  out  of  the 
mouth  of  thy  seed's  seed,  from  henceforth  forever.  In  the  New 
Testament  the  fact  that  the  promises  made  to  believers  include 
their  children,  was  recognized  from  the  very  foundation  of  the 
Christian  church.  In  the  sermon  delivered  by  Peter  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  he  said,  the  promise  is  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee.  And  Paul  assures  us  even  with  regard  to  outcast  Israel, 
the  children  are  beloved  for  the  father's  sake.  It  is,  therefore, 
true,  as  might  be  much  more  fully  proved,  that  by  divine  ap- 
pointment the  children  of  believers  are  introduced  into  the  cov- 
enant into  which  their  parents  enter  with  God,  and   that  the 

20 


306  BUSH  NELL     ON     CHRISTIAN     NURTURE. 

promises  of  that  covenant  are  made  no  less  to  the  children  than 
to  the  parents.  He  promises  to  be  their  God,  to  give  them  his 
Spirit,  to  renew  their  hearts,  and  to  cause  them  to  live. 

This  promise,  however,  like  all  others  of  a  similar  character, 
is  general  ;  expressing  what  is  to  be  the  general  course  of  events, 
and  not  what  is  to  be  the  result  in  every  particular  case.  When 
God  promised  that  summer  and  winter,  seed-time  and  harvest 
should  succeed  each  other  to  the  end  of  time,  he  did  not  pledge 
himself  that  there  never  should  be  a  failure  in  this  succession, 
that  a  famine  should  never  occur,  or  that  the  expectations  of  the 
husbandman  should  never  be  disappointed.  Nor  does  the  decla- 
ration, "  train  up  a  child  in  the  way  in  which  he  should  go,  and 
when  he  is  old  he  will  not  depart  from  it,"  contain  a  promise  that 
no  well-disciplined  child  shall  ever  wander  from  the  right  path. 
It  is  enough  that  it  expresses  the  tendency  and  ordinary  result 
of  proper  training.  In  like  manner,  the  promise  of  God  to  give 
his  Spirit  to  the  children  of  believers,  does  not  imply  that  every 
Buch  child  shall  be  made  the  subject  of  saving  blessings.  It  is 
enough  that  it  indicates  the  channel  in  which  his  grace  ordinarily 
flows,  and  the  general  course  of  his  dispensations. 

Again,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  these  promises  are  condi- 
tional. God  has  never  promised  to  make  no  distinction  between 
faithful  and  unfaithful  parents,  between  those  who  bring  uj)  their 
offspring  in  the  nurture  of  the  Lord,  and  those  who  utterly  neg- 
lect their  religious  training.  The  condition,  which  from  the 
nature  of  the  case  is  implied  in  this  promise,  is  in  many  cases 
expressly  stated.  His  promise  is  to  those  who  keep  his  covenant, 
and  to  those  who  remember  his  commandments  to  do  them.  It 
is  involved  in  the  very  nature  of  a  covenant  that  it  should  have 
conditions.  And  although  in  one  important  sense,  the  conditions 
of  the  covenant  of  grace  have  been  performed  by  Christ,  still  its 
promises  are  suspended  on  conditions  to  be  performed  by  or  in 
his  people.  And  this  is  expressly  declared  to  be  the  case  with 
regard  to  the  promises  of  the  divine  blessing  to  the  children  of 
believers.  They  must  keep  his  covenant.  They  must  train  np 
their  children  for  God.  They  must  use  the  means  which  he  has 
appointed  for  their  conversion  and  sanctification,  or  the  promise 
does  not  ai)ply  to  them.  Then  again,  there  is  a  condition  to  be 
performed  by  the  children  themselves.  God  promises  to  be  their 
God,  but  they  must  consent  to  be  his  people.     He  promises  them 


BUSHNELL    ON    CHRISTIAN    NURTURE.  307 

his  Spirit,  but  they  must  seek  and  cherish  his  influence.  If  they 
renounce  the  covenant,  and  refuse  to  have  God  for  their  God,  and 
to  walk  in  the  way  of  his  commandments,  then  the  promise  no 
longer  pertains  to  them. 

It  will  naturally  be  objected,  that  if  this  is  so,  the  promise 
amounts  to  nothing.  If  after  all,  it  is  not  the  children  of  be- 
lievers as  such,  and  consequently  all  such  children,  who  are  to  be 
saved  ;  if  the  promise  to  them  is  general  as  a  class  and  not  to 
each  individual  ;  if  it  is  conditional  on  the  fidelity  of  parents  and 
of  the  children  themselves,  its  whole  value  is  gone.  What  have 
they  more  than  others  ?  What  advantage  have  the  children  of  the 
covenant  ?  or  what  profit  is  there  in  baptism  ?  It  is  precisely  thus 
the  Jews  reasoned  against  the  apostle.  When  hd  proved  that  it 
was  not  the  Jews  as  Jews,  and  simply  because  Jews,  who  were  to 
be  the  heirs  of  salvation,  and  that  circumcision  could  profit  them 
nothing  unless  they  kept  the  law,  they  immediately  asked  : 
What  advantage  then  hath  the  Jew,  and  what  profit  is  there  of 
circumcision  ?  Much  every  way,  answered  the  apostle — chiefly 
because  unto  them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God.  To  them 
belonged  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and 
the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service,  and  the  promises  :  theirs 
were  the  fathers,  and  of  them,  as  concerning  the  flesh,  Christ 
came.  Salvation  was  of  the  Jews.  All  the  religion  that  was  in 
the  world  was  found  among  them.  It  was  therefore  a  great  ad- 
vantage to  be  found  among  that  favored  people,  even  although 
from  the  want  of  faithfulness,  on  the  part  both  of  parents  and 
children,  so  many  of  them  perished.  In  like  manner  it  is  a 
great  blessing  to  be  born  within  the  covenant,  to  be  the  children 
of  believers — to  them  belong  the  adoption  and  the  promises, 
they  are  the  channel  in  which  the  Spirit  flows,  and  from  among 
them  the  vast  majority  of  the  heirs  of  salvation  are  taken  not- 
withstanding the  multitudes  who  perish  through  their  own  fault 
or  the  fault  of  their  parents. 

It  is,  therefore,  a  scriptural  truth  that  the  children  of  believ- 
ers are  the  children  of  God ;  as  being  within  his  covenant  with 
their  parents,  he  promises  to  them  his  Spirit ;  he  has  established 
a  connexion  between  faithful  parental  training  and  the  salvation 
of  children,  as  he  has  between  seed-time  and  harvest,  dilio:ence 
and  riches,  education  and  knowledge.  In  no  one  case  is  abso- 
lutely certainty  secured  or  the  sovereignty  of  God  excluded.    But 


308  BUSHNELL    ON    CHRISTIAN    NURTURE, 

in  all  the  divinely  appointed  connexion  between  means  and  end, 
is  obvious. 

That  this  connexion  is  not  more  apparent,  in  the  case  of 
parents  and  children  is  due,  in  a  great  measure,  to  the  sad  defi- 
ciency in  parental  fidelity.  If  we  look  over  the  Christian  world, 
how  few  nominally  Christian  parents  even  pretend  to  bring  up 
their  children  for  Grod.  In  a  great  majority  of  cases  the  attain- 
ment of  some  worldly  object,  is  avowedly  made  the  end  of  educa- 
tion ;  and  all  the  influences  to  which  a  child  is  exposed  are 
designed  and  adapted  to  make  him  a  man  of  the  world.  And 
even  within  the  pale  of  evangelical  churches,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed, there  is  great  neglect  as  to  this  duty.  Where  is  the 
parent  whose  children  have  turned  aside  from  God,  whose  heart 
will  not  rather  reproach  him,  than  charge  God  with  forgetting 
his  promise  ?  Our  very  want  of  faith  in  the  promise  is  one 
great  reason  of  our  failure.  We  have  forgotten  the  covenant. 
We  have  forgotten  that  our  children  belong  to  God  ;  that 
he  has  promised  to  be  their  God,  if  we  are  faithful  to  our 
trust.  We  do  not  say  that  all  the  children  of  the  most  faith- 
ful parent,  will  certainly  be  saved,  any  more  than  we  would  say 
that  every  diligent  man  will  become  rich  ;  but  the  Scriptures 
do  say  that  the  children  of  believers  are  the  subjects  of  the  divine 
promise,  as  clearly  as  they  say,  the  hand  of  the  diligent  maketh 
rich. 

This  doctrine  is  clearly  imphed  in  the  circumcision  and  bap- 
tism of  children.  Why  is  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant 
attached  to  them,  if  they  are  not  within  the  covenant  ?  What 
are  the  promises  of  that  covenant  but  that  God  will  be  their 
God,  that  he  will  forgive  their  sins,  give  them  his  Spirit,  renew 
their  hearts,  and  cause  them  to  live  "^  These  promises  are  there- 
fore made  to  them,  and  are  sealed  to  them  in  their  baptism,  just 
as  much  as  they  are  to  their  parents.  This  has  been  the  uniform 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  church.  It  is  avowed  in  all  confessions, 
and  involved  in  the  usages  of  all  communions. 

In  the  appendix  to  the  Geneva  Catechism,  in  the  form  for 
the  administration  of  Baptism,  it  is  said :  Quamobrem  etsi 
fideUum  liberi  siut  ex  Adami  corrupta  stirpe  ac  genere,  eos  ad  se 
nihilominus  admittit,  propter  foedus  videlicet  cum  eorum  paren- 
tibus  inituni,  eosque  pro  liberis  suis  habet  ac  numerat ;  oh  eamque 
causam  jam  inde  ab  initio  nascentis  ecclesiae  voluit  infantibus  cir- 


BUSHNELL    ON     CHRISTIAN     NURTURE.  309 

cumcisionis  notum  imprimi,  qua  quidem  nota  jam  eadem  omnia 
significabat  ac  demonstrabat,  quae  hodie  in  Baptismo  designatur. 
fif  *  *  Minime  dubium  est,  quin  liberi  nostri  hasredes  sint 
ejus  vitse  ac  salutus,  quam  nobis  est  pollicitus  ;  qua  de  causa  eos 
sanctificari  Paulus  affirmat,  jam  inde  ab  utero  matris,  quo  ab 
Ethnicorum  et  e  vera  religione  abhorrentium  hominum  liberis 
discernantur.  Belgic  confession  Act.  34.  Nos  eos  (infantes) 
eadem  ratione  baptizandos  et  signo  foederis  absignandos  esse  cre- 
dimus,  qua  olim  in  Israele  parvuli  circumcidebantur,  nimirum 
propter  easdem  promissiones  infantibus  nostris  lactas.  Et  revera 
Christus  non  minus  sanguinem  suum  effudit,  ut  fidelium  infantes, 
quam  ut  adultos  ablueret. 

Heidelberg  Catechism :  Ought  young  children  to  be  baptized  ? 
Yes,  because  they  as  well  as  adults  are  embraced  in  the  covenant 
and  church  of  God.  And  because  to  them  the  deliverance  from 
sin  through  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Grliost,  are  no  less 
promised  than  to  adults  ;  they  should  therefore  be  united  by 
baptism,  the  sign  of  the  covenant,  to  the  church,  and  distin- 
suished  from  the  children  of  unbelievers,  as  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment  was  done  by  circumcision,  in  the  place  of  which  baptism  is 
appointed. 

Helvetic  Confession.  II.  20.  Damnamus  Anabaptistas,  qui 
negant  baptisandos  esse  infantiilos  recens  natos  a  fidelibus.  Nam 
juxta  doctrinam  evangelicam,  horum  est  regnum  Dei,  et  sunt  in 
fcedere  Dei,  cur  itaque  non  daretur  eis  signum  foederis  Dei  ?  cur 
non  per  sanctum  Baptisma  initiarentur,  qui  sunt  peculium  et  in 
ecclesia  Dei  ? 

These  are  only  a  specimen  of  the  numerous  recognitions  by 
the  Reformed  churches,  of  the  great  truth,  that  the  infants  of 
believers  are  included  in  that  covenant  in  which  God  promises 
grace  and  salvation.  To  them  these  promises  are  made.  There 
is  an  intimate  and  divinely  established  connexion  between  the 
faith  of  parents  and  the  salvation  of  their  children  ;  such  a  con- 
nexion as  authorizes  them  to  plead  God's  promises,  and  to  ex- 
pect with  confidence,  that  through  his  blessing  on  their  faithful 
efforts,  their  children  will  grow  up  the  children  of  God.  This 
is  the  truth  and  the  great  truth,  which  Dr.  Bushnell  asserts. 
This  doctrine  it  is  his  principal  object  to  establish.  It  is 
this  that  gives  his  book  its  chief  value.  This,  and  its  conse- 
quences, render  his  discourses  so  appropriate  to  the  present  state 


310  BUSHNELL    ON     CHRISTIAN    NURTURE, 

of  the  church  ;  for  there  is  perhaps  no  one  doctrine  to  which  it 
is  more  important  in  our  day  to  call  the  attention  of  the  people 
of  God. 

A  second  truth  prominently  presented  by  our  author  is  that 
parental  nurture,  or  Christian  training,  is  the  great  means  for  the 
salvation  of  the  children  of  the  church.  We  of  course  recognize 
the  native  depravity  of  children,  the  absolute  necessity  of  their 
regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  inefficiency  of  all  means  of 
grace  without  the  blessing  of  Grod.  But  what  we  think  is  plain- 
ly taught  in  Scripture,  what  is  reasonable  in  itself,  and  confirmed 
by  the  experience  of  the  church,  is,  that  early,  assiduous,  and 
faithful  religious  culture  of  the  young,  especially  by  believing 
parents,  is  the  great  means  of  their  salvation.  A  child  is  born  in 
a  Christian  family,  its  parents  recognize  it  as  belonging  to  God 
and  included  in  his  covenant.  In  full  faith  that  the  promise  ex- 
tends to  their  children  as  well  as  to  themselves,  they  dedicate 
their  child  to  him  in  baptism.  From  its  earliest  infancy  it  is  the 
object  of  tender  solicitude,  and  the  subject  of  many  believing 
prayers.  The  spirit  which  reigns  around  it  is  the  spirit,  not  of 
the  world,  but  of  true  religion.  The  truth  concernig  God  and 
Christ,  the  way  of  salvation  and  of  duty,  is  inculcated  from  the 
beginning,  and  as  fast  as  it  can  be  comprehended.  The  child  is 
sedulously  guarded  as  far  as  possible  from  all  corrupting  influence, 
and  subject  to  those  which  tend  to  lead  him  to  God.  He  is 
constantly  taught  that  he  stands  in  a  peculiar  relation  to  God,  as 
being  included  in  his  covenant  and  baptized  in  his  name  ;  that 
he  has  in  virtue  of  that  relation  a  right  to  claim  God  as  his 
Father,  Christ  as  his  Saviour,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  as  his  sancti- 
iier  ;  and  assured  that  God  will  recognize  that  claim  and  receive 
him  as  his  child,  if  he  is  faithful  to  his  baptismal  vows.  The 
child  thus  trained  grows  up  in  the  fear  of  God  ;  his  earliest  ex- 
periences are  more  or  less  religious  ;  he  keeps  aloof  from  open 
sins  ;  strives  to  keep  his  conscience  clear  in  the  sight  of  God, 
and  to  make  the  divine  will  the  guide  of  his  conduct.  When  he 
comes  to  maturity,  the  nature  of  the  covenant  of  grace  is  fully 
explained  to  him,  he  intelligently  and  deliberately  assents  to  it, 
publicly  confesses  himself  to  be  a  worshipper,  and  follower  of 
Christ,  and  acts  consistently  with  his  engagements.  This  is  no 
fancy  sketch.  Such  an  experience  is  not  uncommon  in  actual 
life.     It  is  obvious  that  in  such  cases  it  must  be  difficult  both  for 


BUSHNELL    ON    CHRISTIAN    NURTURE.  311 

the  person  himself  and  for  those  around  him,  to  fix  on  the  pre- 
cise period  when  he  passed  from  death  unto  hfe.  And  even  in 
cases,  where  there  is  more  of  conflict,  where  the  influence  of  early- 
instruction  has  met  with  greater  opposition,  and  where  the  change 
is  more  sudden  and  observable,  the  result,  under  God,  is  to  be  at- 
tributed to  this  parental  training. 

What  we  contend  for  then,  is,  that  this  is  the  appointed,  the 
natural,  the  normal  and  ordinary  means  by  which  the  children  of 
believers  are  made  truly  the  children  of  Grod.  And  consequently 
this  is  the  means  which  should  be  principally  relied  upon,  and 
employed,  and  that  the  saving  conversion  of  our  children  should 
in  this  way  be  looked  for  and  expected.  It  certainly  has  the 
sanction  of  God.  He  has  appointed  and  commanded  precisely 
this  early  assiduous  and  faithful  training  of  the  young.  These 
words,  saith  the  Lord,  which  I  command  you  this  day,  shall  be 
in  thine  hearts  :  and  thou  shalt  teach  them  diligently  unto  thy 
children,  and  shalt  talk  of  them  when  thou  sittest  in  thy  house, 
and  when  thou  walkest  by  the  way,  and  when  thou  liest  down, 
and  when  thou  risest  up.  Ye  fathers,  provoke  not  your  children 
to  wrath,  but  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord.  As  this  method  of  religioas  training  has  the  sanction  of 
a  divine  command,  so  it  has  also  the  benefit  of  his  special  promise. 
Success  in  the  use  of  this  means  is  the  very  thing  promised  to 
parents  in  the  covenant  into  which  they  are  commanded  to  in- 
troduce their  children.  God,  in  saying  that  he  will  be  their  God, 
give  them  his  Spirit,  and  renew  their  hearts,  and  in  connecting 
this  promise  with  the  command  to  bring  them  up  for  him,  does 
thereby  engage  to  render  such  training  efiectual.  Train  up  a 
child  in  the  way  he  should  go,  and  when  he  is  old  he  will  not 
depart  from  it,  is  moreover  the  express  assurance  of  his  word. 
There  is  also  a  natural  adaptation  in  all  means  of  God's  appoint- 
ment, to  the  end  they  are  intended  to  accomplish.  There  is  an 
appropriate  connexion  between  sowing  and  reaping,  between 
diligence  and  prosperity,  truth  and  holiness,  religious  training 
and  the  religious  life  of  children.  If  the  occasional  and  promis- 
cuous hearing  of  the  word  as  preached,  is  blessed  to  their  convic- 
tion and  conversion,  why  should  not  the  early,  personal,  appro- 
priate application  of  the  same  truth,  aided  by  all  the  influence 
of  natural  affection,  and  the  atmosphere  of  a  pious  home,  be 
expected  to  be  still  more  effective  ?     How  sensibly  is  a  child's 


312  BUSHNELL    ON    CHRISTIAN    NURTURE 

disposition  and  character  moulded  in  other  respects  by  parental 
example  and  teaching.  How  much  greater,  humanly  speaking, 
is  the  advantage  which  a  parent  possesses  than  any  preacher  can 
have,  in  his  constant  intercourse  with  his  child,  in  his  hold  on  its 
confidence  and  love,  and  in  the  susce])tibility  to  good  impressions 
which  belongs  to  the  early  period  of  life.  Surely  contact  with 
the  world,  the  influence  of  evil  passions  long  indulged,  of  op- 
position to  the  truth,  to  the  dictates  of  conscience,  and  the 
strivings  of  the  Spirit,  must  harden  the  heart,  and  increase 
the  difficulties  of  a  sound  conversion.  In  no  part  of  his  Dis- 
courses nor  in  his  Argument  in  their  defence,  is  Dr.  Bushnell 
so  true  or  eloquent  as  in  what  he  says  of  the  natural  power  of 
parental  influence,  even  before  the  development  of  reason  in  the 
child. 

"  Many  persons,"  he  says,  "  seem  never  to  have  brought  their 
minds  down  close  enough  to  an  infant  child  to  understand  that 
anything  of  consequence  is  going  on  with  it,  until  after  it  has 
come  to  language  and  become  a  subject  thus  of  instruction.  As 
if  a  child  were  to  learn  a  language  before  it  is  capable  of  learning 
anything  !  Whereas  there  is  a  whole  era,  so  to  speak,  before 
language,  which  may  be  called  the  era  of  impressions,  and  these 
impressions  are  the  seminal  principles,  in  some  sense,  of  the 
activity  that  runs  to  language,  and  also  of  the  whole  future  char- 
acter. I  strongly  suspect  that  more  is  done,  in  the  age  previous 
to  language,  to  affect  the  character  of  children,  whether  by 
parents,  or,  when  they  are  waiting  in  indolent  security,  by  nurses 
and  attendants,  than  in  all  the  instruction  and  discipline  of  their 
minority  afterwards  ;  for,  in  this  first  age,  the  age  of  impressions, 
there  goes  out  in  the  whole  manner  of  the  parent — the  look,  the 
voice,  the  handling — an  expression  of  feeling,  and  that  feeling 
expressed  streams  directly  into  the  soul,  and  reproduces  itself 
there,  as  by  a  law  of  contagion.  What  man  of  adult  age,  who 
is  at  all  observant  of  himself,  has  failed  to  notice  the  power  that 
lies  in  a  simple  presence,  even  to  him  ?  To  this  jDower  the  infant 
is  passive  as  the  wax  to  the  seal.  When,  therefore,  we  consider 
how  small  a  speck,  falling  into  the  nucleus  of  a  crystal,  may  dis- 
turb its  form  ;  or  how  the  smallest  mote  of  foreign  matter  present 
in  the  quickening  egg,  will  suffice  to  produce  a  deformity  ;  con- 
sidering, also,  on  the  other  hand,  what  nice  conditions  of  repose, 
in  one  case,  and  what  accurately  modulated  8upj)lies  of  heat,  in 


BUSHNELL    ON     CHKISTIAN    NURTUKE.  313 

the  other,  are  necessary  to  a  perfect  product ;  then  only  do  we 
begin  to  imagine  what  work  is  going  on  in  the  soul  of  a  child 
during  the  age  of  impressions.  Suppose  now  that  all  preachers 
of  Christ  could  have  their  hearers,  for  whole  months,  in  their 
own  will,  after  the  same  manner,  so  as  to  move  them  by  a  look, 
a  motion,  a  smile,  a  frown,  and  act  their  own  sentiments  and 
emotions  over  in  them  ;  and  then,  for  whole  years,  had  them  in 
authority  to  command,  direct,  tell  them  whither  to  go,  what  to 
learn,  what  to  do,  regulate  their  hours,  their  books,  their  pleas- 
ures, and  their  company,  and  call  them  to  prayer  over  their  own 
knees  every  night  and  morning,  who — that  can  rightly  conceive 
such  an  organic  acting  of  one  being  in  many,  will  deem  it  extrav- 
agant, or  think  it  a  dishonor  to  the  grace  of  God,  to  say  that  a 
power  like  this  may  well  be  expected  to  fashion  all  who  come 
under  it  to  newness  of  life  ? 

"  Now  what  I  have  endeavored,  in  my  tract,  and  what  I  here 
endeavor  is,  to  waken,  in  our  churches,  a  sense  of  this  power  and 
of  the  momentous  responsibilities  that  accrue  under  it.  I  wish 
to  produce  an  impression  that  God  has  not  held  us  responsible  for 
the  effect  only  of  what  we  do,  or  teach,  or  for  acts  of  control  and 
government  ;  but  quite  as  much,  for  the  effect  of  our  being  lohat 
we  are;  that  there  is  a  plastic  age  in  the  house,  receiving  its 
type,  not  from  our  words  but  from  ouv  spirit,  one  whose  character 
is  shaping  in  the  moulds  of  our  own/' 

If  on  this  subject  we  appeal  to  experience,  we  shall  find  that 
religion  has  flourished  in  all  ages,  and  in  all  parts  of  the  church, 
just  in  the  proportion  in  which  attention  has  heen  given  to  the 
religious  training  of  the  young.  God  prepared  the  world  for  the 
gospel  by  a  long  course  of  discipline.  The  law  was  a  school- 
master to  bring  men  to  Christ.  The  Jews  were  scattered  over 
the  Koman  empire  to  educate  a  people  for  the  Lord.  Every 
synagogue  was  a  preparatory  school  for  the  church,  and  it  was 
from  among  those  trained  in  these  schools  that  the  early  converts 
to  the  gospel,  were  gathered.  In  the  early  church  the  instruc- 
tion of  the  young  was  made  a  principal  part  of  parental  and 
ministerial  duty.  When  religion  began  to  decline,  and  men 
were  taught  that  baptism  wrought  the  change  which  God  had 
appointed  Christian  nurture  to  effect,  then  religious  education 
was  neglected,  and  ritualism  supplanted  piety.  When  the  gos- 
pel was  revived,  Christian  nurture  revived  with  it.     Catechisms 


314  BUSHNELL    ON    CHRISTIAN    NURTUBE. 

for  the  young  were  among  the  earliest  and  most  effective  of  the 
productions  of  the  Reformers.  True  religion  from  that  day  to 
this  has  kept  pace,  risen  or  declined,  just  as  the  training  of  the 
young  has  been  attended  to  or  neglected.  Scotland  is  tlie  most 
religious  nation  in  Europe,  because  her  children  are  the  best  in- 
structed. When  our  missionaries  go  to  the  eastern  churches  or 
to  the  heathen,  they  find  preaching  to  adults  like  talking  to  a 
brazen  wall.  They  begin  with  the  young.  They  take  Grod's 
method,  and  train  up  a  generation  to  his  praise.  If  we  look  over 
our  own  country  we  are  taught  the  same  lesson.  Religion,  what 
there  is  of  it,  is  the  inconstant  and  destructive  fire  of  fanaticism, 
wherever  children  grow  up  out  of  the  church  and  ignorant  of 
God.  With  him  indeed  nothing  is  impossible — and  therefore 
adult  heathen,  or  ignorant  and  superstitious  nominal  Christians, 
are  not  beyond  the  reach  of  his  power,  and  are  often  made  the 
subjects  of  his  grace  ;  just  as  the  thief  was  converted  on  the 
cross.  But  a  death-bed  is  not  the  best  place  for  repentance,  nor 
are  ignorant  and  hardened  sinners  the  most  hopeful  subjects  of 
conversion. 

The  truth  here  asserted  has  always  been  recognized  in  the 
church.  The  wisest  and  best  men  have  known  and  taught,  that 
the  ordinary  and  normal  method  of  bringing  the  children  of  be- 
hevers  to  the  saving  obedience  of  the  truth,  was  Christian  train- 
ing. To  this  therefore  all  evangelical  churches  bind  believing 
parents,  by  solemn  vows,  calling  upon  them  to  pray  with  and 
for  their  children,  to  set  before  them  a  godly  example  and  to 
teach  them  his  word.  Why  is  all  this  done,  if  it  is  not  God's 
appointed  means  for  their  salvation  ?  "  I  doubt  not  to  afBrm," 
says  Baxter,  "  that  a  godly  education  is  God's  first  and  ordinary 
appointed  means  for  the  begetting  of  actual  faith  and  other 
graces  in  the  children  of  believers.  *  *  •■•■  And  the  preaching 
of  the  word  by  public  ministers  is  not  the  first  ordinary  means 
of  grace  to  any  but  those  that  were  graceless  till  they  come  to 
hear  such  preaching,  that  is,  to  those  on  whom  the  first  appointed 
means  hath  been  neglected  or  proved  vain."  Christian  Directory, 
vol.  ii.  c.  6,  4.  "  Every  Christian  family,"  says  Edwards,  "  ought 
to  be,  as  it  were,  a  little  church,  consecrated  to  Christ,  and 
wholly  influenced  and  governed  by  his  rules.  And  family  educa- 
tion and  order  are  some  of  the  chief  means  of  grace.  If  these 
fail,  all  other  means  are  likely  to  prove  ineflectual."     Vol.  i.  90.' 

'  Both  these  quotations  are  borrowed  from  Dr.  Bushnell's  Argument,  pp.  lu  and  15 


BUSHNELL    ON    CHRISTIAN    NURTURE.  315 

This  principle  characteristically  governed  the  conduct  of  our 
Presbyterian  ancestors  both  in  England  and  Scotland.  They 
were  accustomed  to  insist  much  on  the  relation  of  their  children 
to  the  church  and  the  covenant  of  God,  to  bring  them  up  under 
the  conviction  that  they  belonged  peculiarly  to  him,  were  under 
peculiar  obligations,  and  had  a  special  interest  in  his  promises. 
They  frequently  reminded  them  of  this  peculiar  relation,  and 
called  upon  to  renew  their  baptismal  vows.  The  excellent  Philip 
Henry,  drew  up  for  his  children  the  following  baptismal  covenant  : 
"  I  take  God  to  be  my  chiefest  good  and  highest  end.  I  take 
God  the  Son  to  be  my  prince  and  Saviour.  I  take  the  Holy  Ghost 
to  be  my  sanctifier,  teacher,  guide  and  comforter.  I  take  the 
word  of  God  to  be  my  rule  in  all  my  actions  ;  and  the  people  of 
God  to  be  my  people  in  all  conditions.  I  do  likewise  devote  and 
dedicate  unto  the  Lord,  my  whole  self,  all  I  am,  all  I  have,  and 
all  I  can  do.  And  this  I  do  deliberately,  sincerely,  freely,  and 
forever."  "  This,"  says  his  biographer,  "  he  taught  his  children, 
and  they  each  of  them  solemnly  repeated  it  every  Lord's  day  in 
the  evening  after  they  were  catechized,  he  putting  his  amen  to  it, 
and  sometimes  adding  :  '  So  say,  and  so  do,  and  you  are  made 
forever/  "  Many  parents  may  not  be  prepared  to  go  as  far  as 
Philip  Henry,  or  approve  of  calling  upon  children  to  make  such 
professions,  but  we  have  gone  to  the  opposite  extreme.  So  much 
has  this  covenanting  spirit  died  out,  so  little  is  the  relation  of 
our  children  to  God  and  their  interest  in  his  promises  regarded  or 
recognized,  that  we  have  heard  of  men  who  strenuously  objected 
to  children  being  taught  the  Lord's  prayer,  for  fear  they  should 
think  God  was  really  their  father  !  This  shows  to  what  an  extent 
a  false  theory  can  pervert  not  only  the  Scriptures,  but  even  our 
strongest  natural  impulses  and  affections. 

There  is  indeed  great  danger  of  this  training  and  especially 
this  covenanting  with  God  degenerating  into  mere  formality  and 
hypocrisy.  Parents  and  children  may  come  to  think  that  religion 
consists  entirely  in  knowledge  and  orthodoxy  ;  that  they  are  safe 
because  baptized  and  included  in  the  church.  This  tendency 
was  exhibited  among  the  Jews,  who  thought  themselves  the  true 
children  of  God,  and  heirs  of  the  promise,  simply  because  they 
were  the  children  of  Abraham.  It  has  been  exemplified  in  all 
ages  of  the  church,  and  is  still  seen  in  many  denominations  of 
Christians,  even  the  strictest  and  most  orthodox.     Children  may 


316  BUSHNELL     ON     CHRISTIAN    NURTURE. 

be  baptized,  taught  the  catechism,  and  thoroughly  instructed 
and  carefully  restrained,  and  thus  grow  up  well-informed  and 
well-behaved,  and  yet  be  destitute  of  all  true  religion  ;  and  what 
is  still  worse,  deny  there  is  any  religion  beyond  an  orthodox  faith 
and  moral  conduct.  This  is  a  great  evil.  It  is  not,  however,  to 
be  avoided  by  going  to  the  opposite  extreme,  denying  all  pecu- 
liarity of  relation  between  the  children  of  believers  and  the  God 
of  their  fathers,  or  undervaluing  the  importance  of  Christian  nur- 
ture. There  is  no  security  from  any  evil,  but  the  grace  of  God, 
and  the  real  life  of  religion  in  the  church.  Men  are  constantly 
passing  from  one  extreme  to  another.  Neglecting  entirely  the 
covenant,  or  making  external  formal  assent  to  it,  all  that  is  ne- 
cessary. Our  safety  consists  in  adhering  to  the  word  of  God,  be^ 
lieving  what  he  has  said,  doing  what  he  has  commanded,  and  at 
the  same  time  looking  constantly  for  the  vivifying  presence  and 
power  of  his  Spirit.  Our  children,  if  properly  instructed,  will  not 
be  ignorant  of  the  difference  between  obedient  and  disobedient 
children  of  the  covenant.  They  will  be  aware  that  if  insincere  in 
their  professions  or  unfaithful  to  their  engagements,  they  are 
only  the  more  guilty  and  exposed  to  a  severer  condemnation. 
Dr.  Bushnell  says,  that  what  he  endeavored  in  his  Tract,  and 
tried  to  accomplish  in  his  defence  of  it,  is  to  waken  in  our 
churches,  a  sense  of  the  power  of  this  early  religious  training, 
and  of  the  momentous  responsibilities  arising  under  it.  This  is  a 
high  aim.  It  is  a  great  and  good  work,  and  we  heartily  wish  that 
his  book  may  not  fail  of  its  object,  so  far  as  this  is  concerned. 

We  do  not  anticipate  any  dissent  from  the  views  hitherto  ad- 
vanced. All  Christian  parents  who  dedicate  their  children  to 
God  in  baptism,  believe  them  to  be  included  in  the  covenant, 
and  they  do  not  hesitate  to  admit  the  obligation  and  importance 
of  early  religious  education  and  nurture.  But  the  question  is, 
are  not  these  truths  practically  neglected  ?  Does  not  a  theory  of 
religion  extensively  prevail  which  leads  believing  parents  to  ex- 
pect their  children  to  grow  up  very  much  like  other  children, 
unconverted,  out  of  the  church,  out  of  covenant  with  God,  and 
to  rely  far  less  on  the  peculiar  promise  of  God  to  them  and  to  his 
blessings  on  their  religious  culture,  than  on  other  means,  for  their 
salvation  ?  We  cannot  doubt  that  this  is  the  case,  and  that  it  is 
the  source  of  incalculable  evil.  Whether  this  state  of  things  is 
to  be  corrected  by  rejecting  what  is  wrong  in  our  theory,  and 


BUSHNELL     ON     CHRISTIAN    NURTURE.  317 

letting  that  regulate  our  practice  ;  or  whether  we  are  to  regulate 
our  practice  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  trust  to  that  to 
correct  our  theory,  it  may  not  be  very  important  to  determine. 
One  thing,  however,  is  certain,  that  if  we  act  on  the  principles 
and  rules  laid  down  in  Scripture  respecting  Christian  nurture,  we 
must  modify  in  some  measure  our  theory  of  religion,  or  at  least 
of  the  way  in  which  it  is  to  be  promoted.  We  believe  that  all 
true  Christians  of  every  name  and  church  agree  substantially  in 
what  it  is  to  be  a  Christian,  or  wherein  Christianity  subjectively 
considered,  really  consists.  It  is  the  recognition  and  reception  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  he  is  presented  in  the  gospel,  and  the 
consequent  conformity  of  our  hearts  to  his  image,  and  the  devo- 
tion of  our  lives  to  his  service.  It  is  to  apprehend  his  glory  as 
the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  as  God  manifest  in  the  flesh, 
for  our  salvation.  It  is  the  sincere  recognition  of  him,  as  the 
proper  object  of  worship,  and  the  only  ground  of  confidence  be- 
fore Grod  for  justification  and  holiness.  It  is  making  him  the 
supreme  object  of  affection,  and  submitting  to  him  as  to  our 
rightful  and  absolute  sovereign.  Any  man  who  does  this  is  a 
Christian,  and  no  man  is  a  Christian,  who  does  not  do  this,  what- 
ever else  he  may  do  or  be.  This  of  course  implies  a  great  deal. 
It  implies  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  which  the  soul  is 
raised  from  the  death  of  sin,  and  is  made  partaker  of  a  new  prin- 
ciple of  spiritual  life.  It  implies  a  deep  conviction  of  sin  lead- 
ing to  the  renunciation  of  confidence  in  our  own  righteousness 
and  strength  ;  we  must  be  emptied  of  ourselves  in  order  to  be 
filled  with  Christ.  It  implies  such  apprehension  of  the  excel- 
lence and  value  of  the  things  of  God,  as  determines  our  whole 
inward  and  outward  life,  making  it  on  the  one  hand  a  life  of 
communion  with  God,  and  on  the  other  of  active  devotion  to  his 
service.  Now  there  are  two  classes  of  truths  clearly  revealed  in 
Scripture  concerning  the  production  and  promotion  of  true  relig- 
ion as  thus  understood.  The  one  is  that  it  is  supernatural  in  its 
origin,  due  to  no  power  or  device  of  man,  to  no  resource  of  na- 
ture, but  to  the  mighty  power  of  God,  which  wrought  in  Christ 
when  it  raised  him  from  the  dead  ;  by  which  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  we  are  raised  from  spiritual  death  and  so  united  to  Christ 
as  to  become  partakers  of  his  life  ;  and  that  this  life,  thus  divine 
or  supernatural  in  its  origin,  is  maintained  and  promoted,  not  by 
any  mere  rational  process  of  moral  culture,  but  by  the  constant 


818  BUSHNELL    ON     CHRISTIAN    NURTURE. 

indwelling-  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  so  that  it  is  not  we  that  live, 
but  Christ  liveth  in  us.  Religion,  therefore,  or  Christianity  sub- 
jectively considered,  is  not  something  natural,  it  is  not  nature 
elevated  and  refined,  it  is  something  new  and  above  nature  ;  it  is 
what  the  Bible  declares  it  to  be,  the  life  of  God  in  the  souL 
And,  therefore,  as  our  Saviour  teaches  us,  incomprehensible  and 
mysterious,  though  not  the  less  real  and  certain.  In  intimate 
connection  and  perfect  consistency  with  these  truths,  there  is 
another  class,  not  less  clearly  taught  in  the  word  of  God.  This 
divine,  supernatural  influence  to  which  all  true  religion  is  to  be 
referred,-  always  acts  in  a  way  congruous  to  the  nature  of  the 
soul,  doing  it  no  violence,  neither  destroying  nor  creating  facul- 
ties, but  imparting  and  maintaining  life  by  contact  or  communion 
with  the  source  of  all  life.  It  is  moreover  exerted  in  the  use  of 
appropriate  means,  of  means  adapted  to  the  end  they  are  in- 
tended to  accomplish.  It  operates  in  connection  with  the  count- 
less influences  by  which  human  character  is  formed,  especially 
with  the  truth.  It  works  with  and  by  the  truth,  so  that  we  are 
said  to  be  begotten  by  the  truth,  and  to  be  sanctified  by  the 
truth.  There  is  still  another  consideration  to  be  taken  into  view. 
Human  character  is  determined  by  a  great  variety  of  causes, 
some  within  and  others  beyond  the  control  of  the  individual. 
Every  man  receives  at  his  birth  human  nature  with  its  hereditary 
corruption,  but  that  nature  as  modified  by  national,  family,  and 
individual  j^eculiarities.  Its  development  is  determined  partly 
by  his  circumstances,  partly  by  the  energy  of  his  own  will,  partly 
by  the  divine  influence  of  which  he  may  be  the  subject.  Now  it 
is  possible  that  our  theory  of  religion  may  not  embrace  all  these 
facts  ;  or  if  it  professes  to  embrace  them  all,  it  may  give  undue 
prominence  to  one  and  neglect  the  others.  Because  religion  is 
supernatural  in  its  origin  and  support,  we  may  neglect  the  in- 
strumentalities through  which  the  work  is  carried  on  ;  or  because 
these  means  are  essential  and  appropriate,  we  may  think  the 
divine  influence  out  of  view,  or  merge  it  into  the  power  of  nature, 
making  grace  nothing  but  nature  inhabited  by  divine  energy. 
Or  because  our  own  voluntary  agency  is  so  important  an  element 
in  detennining  our  character  and  destiny,  we  may  neglect  every- 
thing else,  and  attributing  sovereign  power  to  the  will,  assert 
that  a  man  is  and  may  become  what  he  pleases  by  a  mere  voli- 
tion.    Character  is  thus  made  a  mere  matter  of  choice,  and  all 


BUSHNELL     ON     CHRISTIAN    NURTURE.  319 

influences  which  operate  either  prior  to  the  will  or  independently 
of  it,  are  discarded. 

We  think  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  many  of  the  popular 
views  of  religion  are  one-sided  and  defective.  On  the  one  hand 
there  are  many  who,  influenced  by  the  conviction  of  the  super- 
natural character  of  religion,  greatly  neglect  to  avail  themselves 
of  the  instrumentalities  which  God  has  appointed  for  its  promo- 
tion. Others  again,  resolve  it  all  into  a  mere  process  of  nature, 
or  attribute  everything  to  the  power  of  the  will.  The  former 
class  lose  confidence  in  the  efl^ect  of  religious  training,  and  seem 
to  take  it  for  granted  that  children  must,  or  at  least  in  all  ordin- 
ary cases,  will,  grow  up  unconverted.  They  look  upon  conversion 
as  something  that  can  only  be  efiected  in  a  sudden  and  sensible 
manner  ;  a  work  necessarily  distinct  to  the  consciousness  of  its 
subject  and  apparent  to  those  around  him.  This  conviction 
modifies  their  expectations,  their  conduct,  their  language,  and 
their  prayers.  It  afiects  to  a  very  serious  degree  both  parents 
and  children,  and  as  it  arises  from  false,  or  at  least  imperfect 
views  of  the  nature  of  religion,  it  of  course  tends  to  produce  and 
perpetuate  them.  We  see  evidence  of  tliis  mistake  all  around 
us,  in  every  part  of  the  country,  and  in  every  denomination  of 
Christians.  We  see  it  in  the  disproportionate  reliance  placed  on 
the  proclamation  of  the  gospel  from  the  pulpit,  as  almost  the 
only  means  of  conversion  ;  and  in  the  disposition  to  look  upon 
revivals  as  the  only  hope  of  the  church.  If  these  seasons  of 
special  visitation  are  few,  or  not  remarkable  in  extent  or  power, 
religion  is  always  represented  as  declining,  the  Spirit  is  said  to 
have  forsaken  us,  and  all  our  eftbrts  are  directed  to  secure  a  re- 
turn of  these  extraordinary  manifestations  of  his  presence. 

We  shall  not,  it  is  hoped,  be  suspected  of  denying  or  of  under- 
valuing the  importance  either  of  the  public  preaching  of  the 
gospel,  or  of  revivals  of  religion.  The  former  is  a  divine  ap- 
pointment, which,  the  experience  of  aU  ages  has  proved  to  be  one 
of  the  most  efficient  means  for  the  conversion  of  sinners  and 
edification  of  saints.  But  it  is  not  the  only  means  of  divine  ap- 
pointment ;  and  as  it  regards  the  children  of  believers,  it  is  not 
the  first,  nor  the  ordinary  means  of  their  salvation,  and  therefore 
should  not  be  so  regarded,  to  the  neglect  or  undervaluing  of  re- 
ligious parental  training.  Besides,  public  preaching  is  eff'ective,  as 
already  remarked  in  all  ordinary  cases,  just  in  proportion  to  the 


320  BUSHNELL    ON     CHRISTIAN     NURTURE. 

degree  in  which  this  early  training  has  been  enjoyed.  As  to 
revivals  of  religion^  we  mean  by  the  term  what  is  generally 
meant  by  it,  and  therefore  it  is  not  necessary  to  define  it.  We 
avow  our  full  belief  that  the  Spirit  of  God  does  at  times  accom- 
pany the  means  of  grace  with  extraordinary  power,  so  that  many 
unrenewed  men  are  brought  to  the  saving  knowledge  of  the  truth, 
and  a  high  degree  of  spiritual  life  is  induced  among  the  people 
of  God.  We  believe  also  that  such  seasons  have  been  among 
the  most  signal  blessings  of  God  to  his  church,  from  the  day  of 
Pentecost  to  our  own  times.  We  believe,  moreover,  that  we  are 
largely  indebted  for  the  religious  life  which  we  now  enjoy,  to  the 
great  revivals  which  attended  the  preaching  of  Edwards,  Whit- 
field, and  the  Tennents  ;  and  at  a  later  period,  of  Davies,  Smith, 
and  others,  in  Virginia.  What,  however,  we  no  less  believe,  and 
feel  constrained  in  conscience  to  say,  is,  that  a  great  and  hurtful 
error  has  taken  ftist  hold  on  the  mind  of  the  church  on  this  sub- 
ject. Many  seem  to  regard  these  extraordinary  seasons  as  the 
only  means  of  promoting  religion.  So  that  if  these  fail,  every 
thing  fails.  Others  again,  if  they  do  not  regard  them  as  the 
only  means  for  that  end,  still  look  upon  them  as  the  greatest  and 
the  best.  They  seem  to  regard  this  alternation  of  decline  and 
revival  as  the  normal  condition  of  the  church  ;  as  that  which 
God  intended  and  which  we  must  look  for  ;  that  the  cause  of 
Christ  is  to  advance  not  by  a  growth  analogous  to  the  progress  of 
spiritual  life  in  the  individual  believer,  but  by  sudden  and  violent 
paroxysms  of  exertion.  We  do  not  believe  this,  because  it  is  out 
of  analogy  with  all  God's  dealings  with  men.  Life  in  no  form  is 
thus  fitful.  It  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  constitution  which 
God  has  given  us.  Excitation,  beyond  a  given  standard,  is  una- 
voidably followed  by  a  coiTesponding  depression.  This  depression 
in  religion  is  sinful,  and  therefore  any  thing  which  by  the  consti- 
tution of  our  nature  necessarily  leads  to  it,  is  not  a  normal  and 
proper  condition.  It  may  be  highly  useful,  or  even  necessary, 
just  as  violent  remedies  are  often  the  only  means  of  saving  life. 
But  such  remedies  are  not  the  ordinary  and  proper  means  of 
sustaining  and  promoting  health.  While,  therefore,  we  believe 
that  when  the  church  has  sunk  into  a  low  state,  God  does  in 
mercy  visit  it  with  these  extraordinary  seasons  of  excitement, 
we  do  not  believe  that  it  is  his  will  that  we  should  rely  upon 
them  as  the  ordinary  and  most  desirable  means  for  the  promotion 


BUSHNELL     ON     CHRISTIAN    NURTURE.  321 

of  his  kingdom,  This  conviction  is  confirmed  by  the  experience 
of  the  church.  These  revivals  are  in  a  great  measure,  if  we  may 
so  speak,  an  idiosyncracy  of  our  country.  They  are  called 
American  revivals.  There  is  nothing  American,  however,  in 
true  religion.  It  is  the  same  in  its  nature,  and  in  its  means  of 
progress,  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  Every  one  who  has  paid  any 
attention  to  the  subject,  has  observed  how  much  religious  expe- 
rience, or  the  form  in  which  religion  manifests  itself,  is  determined 
by  sectarian  and  national  peculiarities.  Moravian,  Lutheran, 
Methodist,  Presbyterian  religion,  has  each  its  peculiar  character- 
istics. So  has  American,  Scotch,  and  German  religion.  It  is 
very  easy  to  mistake  what  is  thus  sectional,  arising  from  the 
peculiar  opinions  or  circumstances  of  a  church  or  people,  for  what 
is  essential.  Such  peculiarities  are  due,  in  almost  every  instance, 
to  something  aside  from  the  truth  as  given  in  the  word  of  God, 
and  consequently  is  so  far  spurious.  The  very  fact,  therefore, 
that  these  revivals  are  American,  that  they  are  in  a  great 
measure  peculiar  to  the  form  of  religion  in  this  country,  that  the 
Spirit  of  God,  who  dwells  in  all  portions  of  his  church,  and  who 
manifests  himself  everywhere  in  the  same  way,  does  not  ordinarily 
carry  on  his  work  elsewhere,  by  this  means,  should  convince  us 
that  this  is  neither  the  common,  nor  the  best  mode  in  which  the 
cause  of  religion  is  to  be  advanced. 

No  one  can  fail  to  remark  that  this  too  exclusive  dependence 
on  revivals  tends  to  produce  a  false  or  unscriptural  form  of  religion. 
It  makes  excitement  essential  to  the  people,  and  leads  them  to 
think  that  piety  consists  in  strong  exercises  of  feelings,  the 
nature  of  which  it  is  difficult  to  determine.  The  ordinary  means 
of  grace  become  insipid  or  distasteful,  and  a  state  of  things  is 
easily  induced,  in  which  even  professors  of  religion  become  utterly 
remiss  as  to  all  social  religious  duties  of  an  ordinary  character. 
We  have  been  told  of  parts  of  the  church,  where  the  services  of 
the  sanctuary  are  generally  neglected,  but  where  the  mere  notice 
of  a  protracted  meeting  will  at  once  fill  the  house  with  hearers, 
who  will  come  just  as  long  as  those  meetings  last,  and  then  fall 
back  into  their  habitual  apathy  and  neglect.  How  serious  also  is 
the  lesson  read  to  us,  by  the  history  of  revivals  in  this  country,  ot 
their  tendency  to  multiply  false  conversions  and  spurious  religious 
experiences.  It  is  surely  not  a  healthful  state  of  the  church, 
when  nothing  is  done  and  nothing  hoped  for  but  in  seasons  when 

21 


322  p.  USHNELL     ON     CHRISTIAN     NURTURE. 

everything  is  thrown  out  of  its  natural  state,  and  when  the 
enemy  has  every  advantage  to  pervert  and  corrupt  the  souls  of 
men.  Perhaps,  however,  the  most  deplorable  result  of  the  mis- 
take we  are  now  considering  is,  the  neglect  which  it  necessarily 
induces  of  the  divinely  appointed  means  of  careful  Christian 
nurture.  With  many  excellent  ministers,  men  who  have  the 
interests  of  their  people  deeply  at  heart,  it  is  so  much  a  habit  to 
rely  on  revivals  as  the  means  of  their  conversion,  that  all  other 
means  are  lost  sight  of.  If  religion  is  at  low  ebb  in  their  con- 
gregations, they  preach  about  a  revival.  They  pray  for  it  them- 
selves, and  exhort  others  to  do  so  also.  The  attention  of  pastor 
and  people  is  directed  to  that  one  object.  If  they  fail,  they  are 
chafed.  The  pastor  gets  discouraged  ;  is  disposed  to  blame  his 
people,  and  the  people  to  blame  the  pastor.  And  all  the  while, 
the  great  means  of  good  may  be  entirely  neglected.  Family 
training  of  children,  and  pastoral  instruction  of  the  young,  are 
almost  entirely  lost  sight  of.  We  have  long  felt  and  often  ex- 
pressed the  conviction  that  this  is  one  of  the  most  serious  evils  in 
the  present  state  of  our  churches.  It  is  not  confined  to  any  one 
denomination.  It  is  a  state  of  things,  which  has  been  gradually 
induced,  and  is  widely  extended.  It  is,  therefore,  one  of  the 
great  merits  of  Dr.  Bushnell's  book,  in  our  estimation,  that  it 
directs  attention  to  this  very  point,  and  brings  prominently 
forward  the  defects  of  our  religious  views  and  habits,  and  points 
out  the  appropriate  remedy,  viz.  :  family  religion  and  Christian 
nurture. 

There  is  a  third  feature  of  this  little  tract  which  gives  it  great 
interest  and  importance  in  our  view.  Dr.  Bushnell  cannot  sustain 
his  view  of  the  intimate  connexion  between  the  religion  of  parents 
and  that  of  their  children,  without  advancing  doctrines  which 
we  regard  as  of  great  value,  and  which,  according  to  his  testi- 
mony and  other  sources  of  evidence,  have  been  very  much  lost 
sight  of,  especially  in  New  England.  The  philosophy  which 
teaches  that  happiness  is  the  great  end  of  creation  ;  that  all  sin 
and  virtue  consist  in  voluntary  acts  ;  that  moral  character  is  not 
transmissible,  but  must  be  determined  by  the  agent  himself ;  that 
every  man  has  power  to  determine  and  to  change  at  will  his  own 
character,  or  to  make  himself  a  new  heart ;  has,  as  every  one 
knows,  extensively  prevailed  in  this  country.  The  obvious  ten- 
dency and  unavoidable  effect  of  this  philosophy  has  been  to  lower 


BUSH  NELL    ON     CHRISTIAN     NURTURE.  323 

all  the  scriptural  doctrines  concerning  sin,  holiness,  regeneration, 
and  the  divine  life.  It  represents  every  man  as  standing  by 
himself,  and  of  course  denies  any  such  union  with  Adam  as  in- 
volves the  derivation  of  a  corrupt  nature  from  him.  Divine 
influence,  and  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  dwindle  down  to  little 
more  than  moral  suasion.  Union  with  Christ,  as  the  source  of 
righteousness  and  life,  is  left  out  of  view.  His  work  is  regarded 
as  scarcely  more  than  a  device  to  render  the  pardon  of  sin  expe- 
dient, and  to  open  the  way  to  deal  with  men  according  to  their 
conduct.  Attention  is  turned  from  him  as  the  ground  of  accept- 
ance and  source  of  strength,  and  everything  made  to  depend  on 
ourselves.  The  great  question  is,  not  what  he  •  is  and  what  he 
has  done,  but  what  is  our  state  and  what  have  we  done  ?  Ke- 
ligion  is  obviously  something  very  different,  according  to  this 
view  of  the  gospel,  from  what  it  is  according  to  the  evangelical 
scheme  of  doctrine.  The  pillars  of  this  false  and  superficial 
system  are  overturned  in  Dr.  Bushnell's  book.  He  has  discovered 
that  "  Goodness  (holy  virtue),  or  the  production  of  goodness,  is 
the  supreme  end  of  Clod."  P.  34.  "  That  virtue  must  be  the 
product  of  separate  and  absolutely  independent  choice,  is  pure 
assumj)tion."  P.  31.  He,  on  the  contrary,  asserts  that  virtue  is 
rather  a  state  of  being  than  an  act  or  series  of  acts."  P.  31. 
What  mighty  strides  are  here  !  "  So  glued,"  says  he  in  his 
Argument,  p.  39,  "  is  our  mental  habit  to  the  impression  that 
religious  character  is  wholly  the  result  of  choice  in  the  individual, 
or  if  it  be  generated  by  a  divine  ictus,  preceded,  of  absolute 
necessity,  by  convictions  and  struggles,  which  are  possible  only 
in  the  reflective  age,  that  we  cannot  really  conceive,  when  it  is 
stated,  the  possibility  that  a  child  should  be  prepared  for  Grod, 
by  causes  prior  to  his  own  will."  "  There  was  a  truth,"  he  says, 
Discourses  p.  42,  "an  important  truth,  underlying  the  old  doc- 
trine of  federal  headshij)  and  original  or  imputed  sin,  though 
strangely  misconceived,  which  we  seem,  in  our  one-sided  specula- 
tions, to  have  quite  lost  sight  of."  Very  true.  But  by  whom 
has  this  important  truth  been  more  misconceived,  misrepresented, 
and  derided  than  by  Dr.  Bushnell  and  his  collaborators  ?  "  How 
can  we  hope,"  he  asks,  "  to  set  ourselves  in  harmony  with  the 
Scriptures,  in  regard  to  family  nurture,  or  household  baptism,  or 
any  other  subject,  while  our  theories  include  (exclude  ?)  or  over- 
look precisely  that  which  is  the  basis  of  all  their  teachings  and 


324  BUSHNELL    ON    CHRISTIAN    NURTURE. 

appointments  ?"  A  question  those  must  answer,  who  can.  It  is 
precisely  this  one-sided  view  of  the  nature  and  relation  of  man, 
this  overlooking  his  real  union  with  Adam,  and  consequent  par- 
ticipation of  his  nature  and  condemnation,  that  old-school  men 
have  been  perpetually  objecting  to  the  speculations  of  New 
England.  And  we  therefore  rejoice  to  see  any  indication  that  the 
truth  on  this  subject  has  begun  to  dawn  on  minds  hitherto  un- 
conscious of  its  existence. 

If,  as  Dr.  Bushnell  teaches,  character  may  be  derived  from 
parents,  if  that  character  may  be  formed  prior  to  the  will  of  the 
child  ;  if  the  child  is  passive  during  this  forming  process,  the 
period  of  its  effectual  calling,  and  emerges  into  his  individuality 
"  as  one  that  is  regenerated,  quickened  into  spiritual  life"'  (Ar- 
gument, p.  32),  then,  of  course,  we  shall  hear  no  more  of  regener- 
ation as  necessarily  the  act  of  the  subject  of  it,  the  decision  of 
his  own  will ;  and  then,  too,  the  doctrine  of  the  plenary  ability 
of  the  sinner  to  change  his  heart  must  be  given  up.  This  latter 
doctrine  is  indeed  expressly  repudiated.  "  The  mind,"  says  Dr. 
Bushnell,  "has  ideals  revealed  in  itself  that  are  even  celestial, 
and  it  is  the  strongest  of  all  proofs  of  its  depravity  that,  when  it 
would  struggle  up  towards  its  own  ideals,  it  cannot  reach  them, 
cannot,  apart  from  God,  even  lift  itself  towards  them."  P.  26, 
How  true,  and  yet  how  old  is  this  !  Again,  "  What  do  theolo- 
gians understand  by  a  fall  and  a  bondage  under  the  laws  of  evil, 
but  evil,  once  entering  a  soul,  becomes  its  master  ;  so  that  it 
cannot  deliver  itself — therefore  that  a  rescue  must  come,  a  re- 
demption must  be  undertaken  by  a  power  transcending  nature." 
P.  37.  Here  then  we  have  the  avowal  of  most  important  truths, 
truths  which  sound  Presbyterians  have  ever  held  dear.  Happi- 
ness is  not  the  chief  good  ;  virtue  does  not  consist  entirely  in 
acts,  but  is  a  state  of  being  ;  men  are  not  isolated  individuals, 
each  forming  his  own  character  by  the  energy  of  his  will ;  moral 
character  is  transmissible,  may  be  derived  passively  on  the  one. 
hand  by  birth  from  Adam,  and  on  the  other,  by  regeneration  ; 
when  sin  enters  the  soul  it  is  a  bondage,  from  which  it  cannot 
deliver  itself,  redemption  must  come  from  God.  These  are  com- 
prehensive truths.  Dr.  Bushnell  seems  surprised  at  finding  him- 
self in  the  company  into  which  such  avowals  introduce  him.    He 

'  This  wo  intend  of  course  aa  an  argument  ad  ?iominem,  we  do  not  hold  to  regen- 
eration by  parental  influence  as  an  organic  power. 


BUSHNELL    ON     CHRISTIAN     NURTURE.  325 

endeavors  to  renounce  such  fellowship,  and  to  avenge  himself,  by 
unwonted  sneers  at  those  to  whose  doctrines  he  is  conscious  of  an 
approximation.  This  can  he  easily  borne.  He  sees  as  yet  men  as 
trees  walking.  Whether  he  will  come  forward  into  clearer  light, 
or  go  back  into  thicker  darkness,  we  cannot  predict.  There  is 
much  in  his  book  which  makes  us  fear  the  latter  alternative. 
We  hope  and  pray  for  the  brighter  issue. 

We  have  brought  forward  the  two  great  points  in  which  we 
agree  with  our  author,  the  fact  of  the  intimate  religious  connec- 
tion between  parents  and  children,  and  the  i)rimary  importance 
of  Christian  nurture,  as  the  means  of  building  up  the  church. 
On  these  points,  we  have  dwelt  disproportionately  long,  and  left 
less  space  and  time  for  the  consideration  of  the  scarcely  less  im- 
portant parts  of  the  subject. 

The  fact  being  admitted  that  there  is  a  divinely  constituted 
connection  between  the  religion  of  parents  and  that  of  their 
children,  the  question  arises.  How  is  this  fact  to  be  accounted 
for  ?  There  are  three  modes  of  answering  this  question.  The 
one  is  that  which  we  have  endeavored  to  present,  which  refers 
the  connection  to  the  promise  of  God  and  his  blessing  on  faithful 
parental  training.  The  second  resolves  it  into  a  law  of  nature, 
accounting  for  the  connection  in  question,  in  the  same  way  or  on 
the  same  principles,  which  determine  the  transmission  of  other 
forms  of  character  from  parent  to  children.  The  third  is  the 
ritual  or  church  system,  which  supposes  it  is  by  the  rites  and 
ministrations  of  the  church,  that  this  connection  is  efi'ected. 

We  understand  Dr.  Bushnell  to  take  the  second  of  these 
grounds,  and  to  maintain  that  there  is  no  -difference  between 
that  and  the  first.  Some,  he  says,  "  take  the  exterior  view,  re- 
garding the  result  as  resting  on  a  positive  institution  of  God.  I 
have  produced  the  interior  view,  that  of  inherent  connection 
and  causation.  But  every  theologian,  who  has  gone  beyond  his 
alphabet,  will  see,  at  a  glance,  that  both  views  are  only  difierent 
forms  of  one  and  the  same  truth,  having  each  its  own  peculiar 
uses  and  advantages,"  Argument,  p.  18.  Before  stating  our  view 
of  Dr.  Bushnell's  system,  and  our  objection  to  it,  it  is  proper  to 
make  two  remarks.  The  first  is,  that  it  is  very  difiicult  to  un- 
derstand what  a  writer  means,  who  employs  a  new  terminology. 
It  requires  no  little  time  to  fix  the  usage  of  language,  and  the 
reader  is  very  liable  to  attach  to  new  terms  some  different  shade 


326  BUSH  NELL    ON     CHRISTIAN    NURTURE. 

of  thought  from  that  which  the  writer  intended.  Besides,  it  is  a 
veiy  small  portion  of  his  own  thoughts  that  an  author  can  spread 
out  upon  a  written  page  ;  there  is  a  fulness  within  which  remains 
undisclosed,  and  which  nothing  short  of  frequent  conference  or 
communication,  can  adequately  reveal.  There  is,  therefore,  a 
great  difference  between  what  a  book  teaches,  and  what  the 
author  himself  may  hold.  The  book  teaches  what  in  fact  it  con- 
veys to  the  majority  of  candid  and  competent  readers  ;  though 
they  may  not  gather  from  it  precisely  what  the  writer  meant  to 
communicate.  In  saying,  therefore,  that  to  our  apprehension, 
Dr.  Bushnell's  book  gives  a  naturalistic  account  of  conversion  or 
the  effect  of  religious  training,  we  do  not  mean  to  assert  that  he 
meant  to  give  such  an  account.  The  second  remark  is,  that  he 
distinctly  declares  himself  to  be  a  supernaturalist.  "  I  meant  to 
interpose,"  he  says,  "  all  the  safe-guards  necessary  to  save  myself 
from  proper  naturalism,  and  I  supposed  I  had  done  it.  I  really 
think  so  now.  The  very  first  sentence  of  my  tract  is  a  declara- 
tion of  sui3ernaturalism."  P.  36.  Again  :  "  So  far  from  holding 
the  possibility  of  restoration  for  men  within  the  terms  of  mere 
nature,  whether,  as  regards  the  individual  acting  for  himself,  or 
the  parent  acting  for  his  child,  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God 
himself  is  not,  as  I  believe,  more  truly  supernatural  than  any 
agency  must  be,  which  regenerates  a  soul."  P.  34.  Notwith- 
standing these  explicit  declarations,  it  is  very  jjossible  that  he 
teaches  what  others  mean  by  naturalism,  and  that  what  he  calls 
supernaturalism  is  something  very  different  from  what  is  com- 
monly understood  by  that  term.  There  is  on  page  14,  of  the 
Discourses,  a  passage  which  we  tliink  is  the  key  to  his  whole  doc- 
trine. "  What  more  appropriate  to  the  doctrine  of  spiritual  in- 
fluence itself,  than  to  believe  that  as  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  fills 
all  the  worlds  of  matter,  and  holds  a  presence  of  power  and  gov- 
ernment in  all  objects,  so  all  souls  of  all  ages  and  capacities,  have 
a  moral  presence  of  Divine  Love  in  them,  and  a  nurture  of  the 
Spirit  appropriate  to  their  wants  T'  The  Spirit  of  Jehovah  is 
here  recognized  as  every  where  present  in  nature  influencing  and 
governing  its  operations.  On  page  35,  of  the  Argument,  he 
speaks  of  "  a  supernatural  grace  which  inhabits  the  organic  laws 
of  nature  and  works  its  result  in  conformity  with  them  ;"  and  on 
page  32,  of  "  organic  power  as  inhabited  by  Christ  and  the 
Spirit  of  God  ;"  on  page  38,  "of  natural  laws  inhabited  by  super- 


BDSHNELL    ON    CHRISTIAN    NURTURE.  327 

natural  agencies."     This,  as  we  understand  these  expressions  in 
their  connection,  is  nothing  more  than  Theism. 

Dr.  Bushnell  rejects  the  mechanical  theory  of  the  universe. 
He  is  not  a  naturalist  in  the  sense  of  the  French  school,  which 
attribute  all  effects  to  the  unconscious  power  of  nature  ;  nor  in 
the  sense  of  those  who  hold  that  Grod  is  entirely  external  to  the 
world  as  a  mechanist  to  a  machine.  lie  holds  that  his  Spirit  is 
everywhere  present  and  ojierative  in  nature,  guiding  and  giving 
power  to  mere  natural  laws.  And  on  this  ground  he  claims  to 
be  a  superuaturalist.  And  so  he  is,  so  far  as  this  goes.  But 
this  is  not  supernaturalism  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term. 
There  is  here  no  distinction  between  Grod's  providential  agency 
and  the  operations  of  his  grace.  He  is,  according  to  this  doc- 
trine, in  »no  other  and  in  no  higher  sense  the  author  of  regener- 
ation than  of  a  cultivated  intellect,  or  of  a  majestic  tree.  The 
intelligence  and  skill  manifested  in  fashioning  a  flower,  or  form- 
ing an  eye  is  not  in  organic  laws,  but  in  those  laws  as  inhabited, 
to  use  Dr.  B.'s  language,  by  God  and  his  Spirit.  The  result  is 
due  to  the  supernatural  element  in  the  power  which  determines 
the  effect.  Now  if  conversion,  if  the  regeneration  and  sanctifi- 
cation  of  the  soul,  is  only  in  this  sense  a  supernatural  work,  then 
it  is  as  much  a  natural  process,  as  much  the  result  of  organic 
laws,  as  any  other  process  of  nature  whatever.'  This  is  natural- 
ism, not  as  distinguished  from  Theism,  but  as  distinguished  from 
supernaturalism,  in  the  religious  sense  of  the  word.  The  very 
thing  designed  by  that  term  is,  that  conversion  and  other  spir- 
itual changes  are  effected,  not  merely  by  a  power  above  anything 
belonging  to  nature  as  separated  from  Grod,  but  by  a  power 
other  and  higher  than  that  which  operates  in  nature.  A  man 
may  be  a  theist,  he  may  believe  that  the  world  is  not  a  lifeless 
machine,  but  everywhere  pervaded  by  the  presence  and  power 
of  God,  and  yet  if* he  admits  no  higher  or  more  direct  interfe- 
rence of  a  divine  influence  in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men,  than 
this  providential  agency,  then  he  is  no  superuaturalist.  God,  ac- 
cording to  this  view  of  the  subject,  is  as  much  the  author  of  de- 
pravity as  of  holiness  ;  for  to  his  providential  agency,  to  his 
"  presence  of  power  and  government"  all  second  causes  owe  their 
efficiency.  Men  are  not  born,  their  bodies  are  not  fashioned, 
nor  their  souls  created,  without  the  exercise  of  his  power.  The 
organic  laws   by  which  a  corrupt  nature  is  transmitted  from 


328  BUSHNELL     ON     CHKISTIAN     NURTURE. 

Adam,  or  corrupt  habits  fostered  by  parents  in  their  chiklren,  or 
by  society  in  its  members,  or  by  one  man  in  another  man,  are  in- 
habited by  divine  energy.  If  this,  therefore,  is  all  the  supernat- 
uralism  of  whicli  Dr.  Bushnell  has  to  boast,  he  is  not  one  inch 
further  advanced  than  the  lowest  Kationalists.  "  Pelagianisni," 
says  Hase,  "  found  its  completion  in  ordinary  Rationalism,  which 
regarded  grace  as  the  natural  method  of  providential  operation."' 
And  Wegscheider,  the  most  phlegmatic  of  Rationalists,  says  : 
Operationes  gratiee  supernaturales  recte  monuerunt  neque  accu- 
ratius  esse  definitas,  nee  diserte  promissas  in  libris  sacris,  neque 
omnino  esse  necessarias,  quum,  quae  ad  animum  emendandum 
valeant,  omnia  legibus  naturae  a  Deo  optime  efficiantur,  nee 
denique  ita  conspicuas,  ut  cognosci  certa  ratione  possint.  Acce- 
dit,  quod  libertatem  et  studium  hominnm  impediunt,  mj^sticorum 
somnia  fovent  et  Deum  ipsum  auctorem  arguunt  peccatorum  ab 
homnibus  non  emandatis  commissorum.  Omnis  igitur  de  gratia 
disputatio  ad  doctrinam  de  providentia  Dei  rectiiis  refertur. 
Institutiones,  §.  152.  A  passage  remarkably  coincident  in  spirit, 
though  much  more  decorous  in  form,  with  one  in  Dr.  Bushnell's 
Argument,  p.  35.  "  If  I  had  handled  my  subject  wholly  undei 
the  first  form,  or  under  the  type  of  the  covenant  as  a  positive 
institution,  I  presume  I  should  have  found  a  much  readier  assent, 
and  that  for  the  very  reason  that  I  had  thrown  my  grounds  of 
expectation  for  Christian  nurture  the  other  side  of  the  fixed 
stars,  whereby  the  parent  himself  is  delivered  from  all  connexion 
with  the  results,  and  from  all  responsibility  concerning  them. 
He  will  reverently  acknowledge  that  he  has  imparted  a  mould 
of  depravity,  but  the  laws  of  connexion  between  him  and  his 
child  are  operative,  he  thinks,  only  for  this  bad  purpose.  If  any 
good  come  to  the  child,  it  must  come  straight  down  from  the 
island  occupied  by  Jehovah,  to  the  child  as  an  individual,  and 
does  not  in  its  coming  take  the  organic » laws  of  parental 
character  on  its  way  to  regenerate  and  sanctify  them  as  its 
vehicle.  As  regards  a  remedy  f(5r  individualism,  little  is  gained, 
even  if  the  doctrine  that  children  ought  to  be  trained  up  in  the 
way  they  should  go  is  believed  ;  for  there  is  no  effectual  or  suffi- 
cient remedy,  till  the  laws  of  grace  are  seen  to  be  perfectly 
coincident  with  the  organic  laws  of  depravity.      Therefore   it 

»  Pelagianisraus  vollendete  sich  im  gewohnlichea  Ratio nalismus,  dem  die  Gnade 
als  die  naturgemiisse  "Wirkungsart  der  Vorsehung  erschien.    Dogmatik.  p.  304. 


BUSHNELL    ON     CHRISTIAN     NURTURE.  329 

was  necessary  to  keep  to  the  naturalistic  form."  This  we  regard 
as  a  pretty  distinct  avowal  that  the  author  admits  no  divine  in- 
fluence other  than  that  which  "inhabits"  organic  laws.  There 
is  no  other  or  higher  efficiency  in  the  eifects  of  grace,  than  in 
propagation  of  depravity.  If  the  parent  is  the  mould  or  vehicle 
through  which  a  depraved  nature  flows  to  his  child,  by  a  process 
just  as  natural,  the  believing  parent  is  the  vehicle  of  spiritual 
life  to  his  offspring. 

The  account  given  in  his  Discourses  of  the  rationale  of  this 
connexion  between  parent  and  child,  confirms  our  impression 
that  it  is  regarded  as  merely  natural.  "  If  we  narrowly  ex- 
amine," he  says,  "  the  relation  of  parent  and  child,  we  shall  not 
fail  to  discover  something  like  a  law  of  organic  connexion,  as  re- 
gards character,  subsisting  between  them.  Such  a  connexion,  as 
makes  it  easy  to  believe,  and  natural  to  expect  that  the  faith  of 
the  one  will  be  propagated  to  the  other.  Perhaps  I  should 
rather  say,  such  a  connexion  as  induces  the  conviction  that  the 
character  of  the  one  is  actually  included  in  that  of  the  other,  as 
a  seed  is  formed  in  its  capsule  ;  and  being  there  matured,  by  a 
nutriment  derived  from  the  stem  is  gradually  separated  from  it. 
It  is  a  singular  fact,  that  many  believe  substantially  the  same 
thing,  in  regard  to  evil  character,  but  have  no  thought  of  any 
possibility  in  regard  to  good.  *  *••■  *  The  child  after  birth,  is 
still  within  the  matrix  of  parental  life,  and  will  be  more  or  less 
for  many  years.  And  the  parental  life  will  be  flowing  into  him 
all  that  time,  just  as  naturally,  and  by  law  as  truly  organic  as 
when  the  sap  of  a  trunk  flows  into  a  limb.  *  •'•■  "••'•"  We  have 
much  to  say  in  common  with  the  Baptists,  about  the  beginning 
of  moral  agency,  and  we  seem  to  fancy  there  is  some  definite 
moment  when  a  child  becomes  a  moral  agent,  passing  out  of  the 
condition  where  he  is  a  moral  nullity,  and  where  no  moral  agency 
touches  his  being.  Whereas  he  is  rather  to  be  regarded,  at  the 
first,  as  lying  within  the  moral  agency  of  the  parent  and  passing 
out  by  degrees  through  a  course  of  mixed  agency,  to  a  proper 
independency  and  self-possession.  The  supposition  that  he  be- 
comes, at  some  certain  moment,  a  complete  moral  agent,  which 
a  moment  before  he  was  not,  is  clumsy,  and  has  no  agreement 
with  observation.  The  separation  is  gradual.  He  is  never,  at 
any  moment  after  birth,  to  be  regarded  as  perfectly  beyond  the 
sphere  of  good  and  bad  exercises,  for  the  parent  exercises  him- 


330  BUSHNELL    ON    CHRISTIAN    NURTURE. 

self  in  the  child,  playing  his  emotions,  and  sentiments,  and  work- 
ing a  character  in  him,  by  virtue  of  an  organic  power.  And.  this 
is  the  very  idea  of  Christian  education,  that  it  begins  with  nur- 
ture or  cultivation.  And  the  intention  is  that  the  Christian  life 
and  spirit  of  the  jiarents  shall  flow  into  the  mind  of  the  child, 
and  blend  ^vith  his  incipient  and  half-formed  exercises,  and  that 
they  shall  thus  beget  their  own  good  within  him,  their  thoughts, 
opinions,  faith,  and  love,  which  are  to  become  a  little  more,  and 
yet  a  little  more  of  his  own  separate  exercise,  but  still  the  same 
in  character."     Discourses,  pp.  26—31. 

This,  the  author  admits,  is,  at  least  as  to  its  form,  a  naturalistic 
account  of  conversion.  And  to  our  apprehension  it  is  so  in  sub- 
stance as  well  as  form.  "  As  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  fills  all  the 
worlds  of  matter,  and  holds  a  presence  of  power  and  government 
in  all  objects,  so  all  souls  of  all  ages  and  capacities,  have  a  moral 
presence  of  Divine  love  in  them,  and  a  nurture  of  the  Spirit  ap- 
propriate to  their  wants,"  and  it  is  this  natural  influence  of  mind 
on  mind,  this  power  which  dwells  in  all  souls  according  to  their 
character  and  capacities,  that  moulds  the  character  of  the  child, 
infuses  little  by  little  spiritual  life  into  it,  and  causes  it  to 
emerge  into  its  individual  existence  a  regenerated  being.  Here 
all  is  law,  organic  natural  law,  as  much  so,  to  use  his  own  illus- 
tration, as  in  the  transmission  of  the  life  of  the  parent  plant  to 
the  seed.  To  be  sure  the  life  is  not  in  the  plant,  the  solar  heat 
is  necessary  to  the  vitality  of  the  plant  and  to  its  transmission  to 
the  seed.  The  effect  is,  therefore,  not  to  be  referred  to  the  laws 
of  vegetation  as  independent  of  solar  influence,  but  the  solar  in- 
fluence is  operative  through  those  laws.  In  like  manner  the 
spiritual  life  of  the  parent  docs  not  exist  independently  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  nor  can  it  be  transmitted  to  the  child  without  his 
influence  ;  but  it  is  nevertheless  transmitted  in  the  way  of  na- 
ture, and  as  the  result  of  organic  laws.  This,  as  before  remarked, 
is  mere  Theism  as  distinguished  from  the  Deistic  or  Atheistic 
theory  of  nature.  There  is  nothing  supernatural  in  this  process, 
nothing  out  of  analogy  with  nature,  nothing  which  transcends 
the  ordinary  efficiency  of  natural  causes  as  the  vehicles  of  divine 
power.  There  is  all  the  diflerence  between  this  theory  of  con- 
version, and  supernaturalism,  that  there  is  between  the  ordinary 
growth  of  the  human  body  and  Christ's  healing  the  sick,  open- 
ing the  eyes  of  the  blind,  or  raising  the  dead.     Both  are  due  to 


BUSHNELL    ON    CHRISTIAN    NURTURE.  331 

the  power  of  God,  but  the  one  to  that  power  acting  in  the  way 
of  nature,  and  the  other  to  the  same  power  acting  above  nature. 
And  a  man  who  should  explain  all  the  miracles  of  Christ  as  the 
result  of  organic  laws,  might  as  well  claim  to  be  a  supernatur- 
alist,  because,  he  believes  God  operates  in  nature,  as  Dr.  Bush- 
nell.  The  whole  question  is,  whether  the  effect  is  due  to  a  power 
that  works  in  nature,  or  above  nature.  The  German  infidel  who 
refers  Christ's  miracles  of  healing  to  animal  magnetism,  re- 
gards magnetism  as  a  form  of  divine  power,  but  he  is  none  the 
less  an  unbeliever  in  the  supernatural  power  of  Christ  on  that 
account. 

That  Dr.  Bushnell's  book  admits  no  other  or  higher  influence 
in  regeneration  than  that  power  of  the  Spirit  which  is  present  in 
all  worlds,  is  still  plainer,  if  possible  from  his  defence  against  the 
charge  of  naturalism.  It  goes  no  further  than  a  denial  of  a 
reference  of  spiritual  life,  to  organic  laws  considered  apart  from 
a  divine  influence  dwelling  in  them  and  operating  by  them.  "  It 
is  the  privilege  of  the  Christian,  not  that  he  is  doomed  to  give 
birth  to  a  tainted  life  and  cease,  but  that  by  the  grace  of  God 
dwelling  in  him  and  the  child,  fashioning  his  own  character  as 
an  organic  mould  for  the  child,  and  the  child  to  a  plastic  con- 
formity with  the  mould  provided,  he  may  set  forth  the  child  into 
life  as  a  seed  after  him — one  that  is  prepared  unto  a  godly  life 
by  causes  prior  to  his  own  will ;  that  is,  by  causes  metaphys- 
ically organic.  Thus  every  thing  previous  to  the  will  falls  into 
one  and  the  same  category.  No  matter  whether  it  come  through 
vascular  connection,  or  parental  handling  or  control,  it  comes  to 
the  child,  I  said,  'just  as  naturally  and  by  a  law  as  truly  organic,' 
(i.  e.,  just  as  truly  from  without  his  own  will),  'as  when  the  sap 
of  a  trunk  flows  into  a  limb.'  At  some  time  sooner  or  later,  but 
only  by  a  gradual  transition,  he  comes  into  his  own  will,  which 
theologically  speaking,  is  the  time  of  his  birth  as  a  moral  subject 
of  God's  government ;  and  if  he  takes  up  life  as  a  corrupted 
subject,  so  he  may  and  ought  to  take  it  up  as  a  renewed  subject 
— that  is,  grow  up  a  Christian."  Argument,  p.  32.  In  answer 
to  a  reviewer  in  the  German  Weekly  Messenger,  he  says  :  "  It 
was  my  misfortune  that  all  the  language  of  supernaturalism,  I 
might  wish  to  employ,  was  already  occupied  by  that  super-super- 
naturahsm  which  he  has  described,  and  the  '  fantastic'  impres- 
sions connected  with  the  same.    In  order,  therefore,  to  brinff  the 


332  BUSHNELL    ON     CHRISTIAN     NURTURE. 

Spirit  and  redemption  from  their  isolation,  and  set  them  in  con- 
tact with  the  organic  laws  of  nature,  I  was  obliged  to  lean  de- 
cidedly as  the  truth  would  suffer,  to  naturalistic  language,  and 
to  set  my  whole  subject  iji  a  naturalistic  attitude.  *  *  *  If 
I  take  my  position  by  the  covenant  of  Abraham  and  hang  my 
doctrine  of  nurture  on  that,  a&  a  positive  institution,  or,  what  is 
the  same,  on  its  promises  ;  if  I  then  contemplate  God  as  coming 
by  his  Spirit  from  a  point  of  isolation  above,  in  answer  to  prayer, 
or  without,  to  work  in  the  heart  of  the  child  regeneration  by  a 
divine  stroke  or  ictus,  apart  from  all  connection  of  cause  and  con- 
sequent, the  change  called  regeneration,  and  thus  to  fulfil  the 
promise  ;  I  realize  indeed,  a  form  of  unquestionable  supernatur- 
alism,  in  the  mind  of  those  who  accept  my  doctrine,  but  it  is 
likely  to  be  as  far  as  possible  from  the  reviewer's  idea,  of  '  the 
supernatural  in  human  natural  form.'  For  all  the  words  I  have 
used  will  have  settled  into  a  form  proper  only  to  religious  indi- 
vidualism. Now  just  as  the  reality  of  the  rainbow  is  in  the 
world's  laws  prior  to  the  covenant  with  Noah,  so  there  is  in 
the  organic  laws  of  the  race,  a  reality  or  ground  answering  to 
the  covenant  with  Abraham  ;  only,  in  the  latter  case,  the  reality 
is  a  supernatural  grace  which  inhabits  the  organic  laws  of  nature 
and  works  its  results  in  conformity  with  them."     Arg.,  p.  35. 

The  idea  we  get  from  all  this  is,  that  as  there  is  at  one  period 
a  vascular  connection  between  the  parent  and  the  child,  in  virtue 
of  which  the  life  of  the  one  is  the  life  of  the  other,  moulding  it 
into  its  own  image  as  a  human  being,  so  after  birth  there  is  a 
metaphysically  organic  connection,  in  virtue  of  which  just  as 
naturally  the  spiritual  life  of  the  parent  becomes  that  of  the 
child,  so  that,  when  it  comes  into  its  own  will,  it  begins,  or  may 
begin  its  course  a  regenerated  human  being.  As  the  former  of 
these  two  processes  is  a  natural  one,  so  is  the  latter  ;  and  as  the 
vascular  connection  is  the  vehicle  of  a  divine  efficiency,  so  is  the 
metaphysical  connection,  but  in  both  cases  that  efficiency  oper- 
ates through  organic  laws.  Or,  as  the  rainbow  is  a  product  of 
natural  laws,  so  it  is  a  result  of  those  laws  that  children  should 
participate  in  the  character  and  moral  life  of  their  parents  ;  and  as 
there  would  have  been  a  rainbow  whether  God  had  ever  promised 
it  or  not,  so  children  would  be  like  their  parents,  whether  God 
had  ever  made  a  covenant  to  that  effect  or  not.  In  both  cases 
there  is  a  natural  "  connection  of  cause  and  consequent."     Now 


BUSHNELL    ON    CHRISTIAN    NURTURE,  333 

it  is  precisely  this  connection,  in  the  case  of  regeneration,  that 
supernaturalism  denies.  Any  result  brought  about  in  the  nat- 
ural concatenation  of  cause  and  consequent,  is  a  natural  effect. 
Any  result  brought  about  by  an  influence  out  of  that  connection, 
is  a  supernatural  effect.  The  controversy  with  the  infidel,  is, 
whether  the  works  of  Christ  were  brought  about  in  the  natural 
series  of  cause  and  consequent ;  and  the  controversy  with  the 
Rationalist  or  Pelagian,  is  whether  regeneration  is  a  natural 
sequence  or  not ;  whether  its  proximate  antecedent,  its  true 
cause,  is  nature  or  grace,  some  organic  law,  or  the  mighty  powei 
of  God,  These  two  views  are  as  far  apart  as  the  poles.  They 
cannot  be  brought  together,  by  saying  God  is  in  nature  as  well 
as  in  grace,  for  the  two  modes  of  his  operation  is  all  the  differ- 
ence. The  whole  question  is,  Whether  God  operates  in  any  other 
way  than  through  nature.  The  naturalist  says  no,  and  the  super- 
naturalist  says,  yes. 

We  are  confirmed  in  our  impression  that  we  do  not  misinter- 
pret Dr.  Bushnell,  by  the  ridicule  which  he  heaps  on  the  idea  of 
any  immediate  interference  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  This  he  speaks 
of  as  God's  coming  from  a  state  of  isolation  above,  from  beyond 
the  fixed  stars,  from  an  island  where  he  dwells.  This  he  stigma- 
tizes as  the  ictic  theory,  "  Hanging,"  as  he  says  Edwards  does  in 
his  account  of  regeneration,  "  every  thing  thus  on  miracle,  or  a 
pure  ictus  Dei,  separate  from  all  instrumental  connections  of 
truth,  feeling,  dependence,  motive,  choice,  there  was  manifestly 
nothing  left  but  to  wait  for  the  concussion.  It  was  waiting,  in 
fact,  as  for  the  arrival  of  God  in  some  vision  or  trance,  and  since 
there  was  no  intelligible  duty  to  be  done,  as  means  to  the  end, 
the  disturbed  soul  was  quite  sure  to  fall  to  conjuration  to  obtain 
the  desired  miracle  ;  cutting  itself  with  the  knives  of  conviction, 
tearing  itself  in  loud  outcries,  and  leaping  round  the  altar  and 
calling  on  the  god  to  come  down  and  kindle  the  fire."  Argu- 
ment, p.  14.  There  is  surely  no  mistaking  such  a  passage  as 
this.  To  us  it  sounds  profane.  It  is  ridiculing  the  doctrine  that 
God  operates  on  the  soul  otherwise  than  through  the  laws  of 
nature.  He,  therefore,  disclaims  all  belief  in  instantaneous  con- 
version,' he  appears  to  have  no  faith  in  what  he  calls  an  explosive 

'  "  Take  the  doctrine  (which  I  frankly  say  I  do  not  hold)  that  regeneration  is  ac- 
complished by  an  instant  and  physical  act  of  God,  to  which  act  truth  and  all  endeav- 
ors in  the  subject  have  no  other  relation,  as  moans  to  ends,  than  the  rams-horns  had 


334  BUSHNELL     ON    CHRISTIAN    NURTURE. 

religion,  which  comes  suddenly  with  convictions  and  struggles. 
The  whole  tenor  of  his  book  is  in  favor  of  the  idea  that  all  true 
religion  is  gradual,  habitual,  acquired  as  habits  are  formed. 
Every  thing  must  be  like  a  natural  process,  nothing  out  of  the 
regular  sequence  of  cause  and  effect.  If  Dr.  Bushnell  really  de- 
nied what  is  commonly  understood  by  experimental  religion,  if  he 
had  no  faith  in  conversion  by  supernatural  influence,  and  meant 
to  place  himself  on  the  Rationalistic  side  of  all  these  controver- 
sies, he  could  hardly  have  more  effectually  accomplished  his 
object,  than  by  setting  as  he  has  done  his  "  whole  subject  in  a 
naturalistic  attitude."  Surely  it  ought  not  to  be  a  matter  of 
doubt  on  which  side  of  such  questions  such  a  man  stands. 

The  true  character  of  the  theory  of  rehgion  taught  in  this 
department  of  his  book,  is  further  apparent  from  two  additional 
considerations.  In  the  tirst  place,  the  author  not  unfrequently 
speaks  "of  generalizing  the  doctrines  of  grace  and  depravity,  so 
as  to  bring  them  into  the  same  organic  laws."  Argument,  p.  33. 
He  teaches  that  "  the  laws  of  grace"  are  "  perfectly  coincident 
with  the  organic  laws  of  depravity."  P.  36.  Now,  as  Dr.  Bush- 
nell does  not  hold  that  depravity  is  propagated  by  any  super- 
natural agency  of  God,  we  do  not  see  how  he  can  claim  that 
grace  is  thus  communicated,  the  laws  which  regulate  both  being 
identical.  We  take  these  passages  to  mean  that  as  it  is  by  a 
process  of  nature  that  depravity  is  communicated  from  parents 
to  children,  as  this  is  the  result  of  organic  laws,  so  by  a  like  pro- 
cess spiritual  life  is  communicated  from  the  parent  to  the  child. 
The  result  is  brought  about,  in  both  cases,  by  parental  character 
and  treatment,  as  an  organic  power. 

The  second  consideration  is,  that  he  avows  it  as  one  of  his 
objects,  to  present  the  most  comprehensive  form  of  truth  possible, 
so  as  to  include  the  most  discordant  views.  He  says,  "  I  had  a 
secret  hope  beforehand  of  carrying  the  assent  of  Unitarians." 
"  In  drawing  up  my  view  of  depravity  as  connected  with  organic 
character,  and  also  in  speaking  of  what  I  supposed  to  be  their 
theory  of  education,  I  did  seek  to  present  the  truth  in  such  a 
way  that  all  their  objections  might  be  obviated."  P.  27.  He 
therefore  exults  in  their  approbation,  and  hopes  they  may  ap- 

to  tho  fall  of  Jericho.  Yet  that  instant,  isolated  act  of  Omnipotence  may  fall  on  the 
heart  of  infancy,  as  well  as  of  adult  years,  and  God  may  give  us  reason  to  expect  it." 
Argument,  p.  33. 


BUSHNELL     ON     CHRISTIAN    NURTURE.  335 

prove  every  sentiment  he  may  hereafter  publish.  He  advocates 
towards  them  a  very  different  course  from  that  which  has  been 
hitherto  adopted.  He  urges  that  great  truths  should  be  pre- 
sented in  such  a  shape  as  to  secure  their  acceptance.  Now  it 
seems  to  us  that  all  this  argues  either  such  an  elevation  that  all 
difterences  of  doctrine  are  lost  sight  of,  as  mountains  and  valleys 
seem  one  great  plain  to  the  aeronaut,  or  a  great  indifference  to 
the  truth.  He  must  either  suppose  that  the  orthodox  and  unita- 
rians are  like  children,  disputing  about  words,  when  they  really 
agree,  had  they  only  sense  enough  to  know  it  ;  or  that  the 
points  of  difference  are  of  so  little  importance  that  they  may  be 
dropped  in  a  statement  of  the  truth  common  to  both.  Either  of 
these  assumptions  is  not  a  little  violent.  It  is  not  likely  that 
Pelagians  and  Augustinians  in  all  ages  have  held  the  same  doc- 
trine without  knowing  it,  waiting  until  some  philosophical  mind 
should  arise  to  frame  a  statement  satisfactory  to  both  parties. 
Nor  is  it  probable  that  the  difference  between  them,  if  real,  is 
now  for  the  first  time,  to  be  shown  to  be  of  no  account.  Dr. 
Bushnell  has  done  nothing.  He  has  not  advanced  an  inch  be- 
yond Pelagius.  The  latter  was  willing  to  call  nature  grace,  and 
the  former  calls  nature  supernatural,  and  wishes  unitarians  and 
orthodox  to  consider  that  a  solution  of  the  whole  matter.  Uni- 
tarians are  agreed,  but  the  orthodox  demur.  And  well  they 
may,  for  supernatural  nature  is  but  nature  stiU,  and  if  salvation 
comes  through  nature,  Christ  is  dead  in  vain  and  Ave  are  yet  in 
our  sins.  Such  compromises  are  nothing  more  nor  less  than  ill- 
disguised  surrender  of  the  truth.  And  the  truth  is  the  life  of  the 
world. 

Dr.  Bushnell,  after  quoting  from  various  writers,  passages 
teaching,  as  he  has  taught,  the  intimate  religious  connexion  be- 
tween parents  and  children,  and  the  paramount  importance  of 
Christian  nurture,  turns  on  the  Massachusetts  committee,  and 
speaking  of  his  opponents,  says  :  "  These  censors  of  orthodoxy 
have  raised  an  outcry,  they  have  stirred  up  a  fright,  and  driven 
you  to  the  very  extreme  measure  of  silencing  a  book — in  which 
it  turns  out  they  have  been  stirring  up  their  heroism  against  Bax- 
ter and  the  first  fathers  of  New  England,  against  Hopkins,  West, 
Dvvight,  and  I  know  not  how  many  others,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
ancient  church  itself,  as  understood  by  the  most  competent  critics. 
n     ■:::-     •::?     And,  now,  what  opinion  will  you  have,  what  opinion 


336  BUSHNELL    ON    CHRISTIAN    NURTURE. 

will  all  sensible  men  have,  two  years  hence,  of  this  dismal  scene 
of  fatuity,  which  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty-seven,  has  so  infected  the  nerves  of  orthodox 
Massachusetts  as  even  to  stop  the  press  of  her  Sahbath  School 
Society  ?"  But  how  comes  it  that  while  Unitarians  agree  with 
Dr.  Bushnell,  they  do  not  agree  with  Baxter,  Hopkins,  West  or 
Dwight  ?  Have  they  all  along  been  mistaken  as  to  what  the 
orthodox  taught,  until  Dr.  Bushnell  presented  the  subject  in  its 
true  light  ?  The  fact  is,  Dr.  Bushnell  is  under  a  great  mistake. 
The  complaint  against  his  book  is  not  for  what  he  has  in  common 
with  Baxter  and  Dwight,  it  is  not  his  teaching  that  the  piety  of 
the  parent  lays  a  scriptural  foundation  for  expecting  the  children 
to  be  pious,  nor  that  Christian  nurture  is  the  great  means  of  their 
conversion,  but  it  is  for  the  explanation  he  has  undertaken  to  give 
of  these  facts.  It  is  because  he  has  not  rested  them  upon  the 
covenant  and  promise  of  God,  but  resolved  the  whole  matter 
into  organic  laws,  explaining  away  both  depravity  and  grace,  and 
presented  the  "  whole  subject  in  a  naturalistic  attitude."  It  is 
this  that  renders  his  book  so  attractive  to  Unitarians,  and  so 
alarming,  with  all  its  excellencies,  to  the  orthodox. 

Our  understanding  of  Dr.  BushnelFs  theory  of  Christian  nur- 
ture is,  then,  this  :  Men  do  exist  as  isolated  individuals,  each 
having  his  life  entirely  within  himself,  and  forming  his  character 
by  his  own  will.  There  is  a  common  life  of  the  race,  of  the 
nation,  of  the  church,  and  of  the  family,  of  which  each  individual 
partakes,  and  which  reveals  itself  in  each,  under  a  peculiar  form, 
determined  partly  by  himself  and  partly  by  the  circumstances  in 
which  he  is  placed.  As  the  child  derives  its  animal  life  from  its 
parents,  with  all  its  peculiarities,  so  also  he  derives  his  moral  and 
spiritual  life  from  the  same  source.  The  organic  connexion  does 
not  cease  at  birth,  but  is  continued  until  the  child  becomes  an 
intelligent,  conscious,  self-determining  agent.  Its  forming  period 
is  prior  to  that  event,  during  which  it  is  in  a  great  measure  the 
passive  subject  of  impressions  from  the  parent,  whose  inward, 
spiritual  life,  of  what  sort  it  is,  passes  over  or  is  continued  in  the 
child.  Such  is  the  condition  in  which  men  are  born  into  this 
world,  and  such  the  power  of  the  life  of  the  parent,  that  natural 
pravity  may  be  overcome  by  Christian  nurture,  and  a  real 
regeneration  effected  by  parental  character  and  treatment  as  an 
organic  power. 


BUSHNELL    ON    CHKISTIAN    NURTURE.  33T 

Every  one  sees  there  is  a  great  deal  of  truth  in  this,  and  that 
most  important  duties  and  responsibihties  must  grow  out  of  that 
truth.  But,  at  the  same  time,  it  is  both  defective  and  erroneous 
as  a  full  statement  of  the  case.  It  rests  on  a  false  assumption  of 
the  state  of  human  nature,  and  of  the  power  of  Christian  nurture. 
It  assumes  that  men  are  not  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath, 
that  they  are  not  involved  in  sjiiritual  death,  and,  consequently, 
that  they  do  not  need  to  be  quickened  by  that  mighty  power 
which  wrought  in  Christ  when  it  raised  him  from  the  dead. 
The  forming  influence  of  j)arental  character  and  life  is  fully 
adequate  to  his  regeneration  ;  education  can  correct  what  there 
is  of  natural  corruption.  In  answer  to  the  objection  that  this  is 
the  old  Pelagian,  Rationalistic  theory  of  human  nature  and  con- 
version, it  is  said,  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  fills  all  worlds,  and  every 
thing  is  due  to  his  presence  and  power.  This,  however,  is  only 
saying  that  second  causes  owe  their  efficiency  to  Grod  ;  a  truth 
which  few  naturalists,  and  even  few  infidels,  deny.  This,  there- 
fore, may  be  admitted,  and  yet  all  supernatural  influence  in  the 
regeneration  of  men  denied. 

It  can  hardly  be  questioned  that  the  Bible  makes  a  broad  dis- 
tinction between  that  agency  of  God  by  which  the  ordinaiy  opera- 
tions of  nature  are  carried  on,  and  the  agency  of  his  Spirit,  in 
the  conversion  and  sanctification  of  men.  The  same  distinction 
has  always  been  made  in  the  church.  In  all  controversies  con- 
cerning grace,  the  question  has  been,  whether  apart  from  the  in- 
fluence of  natural  causes  considered  as  the  ordinary  modes  of  the 
divine  efficiency,  there  is  any  special  and  efiectual  agency  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  regeneration  of  men.  Dr.  Bushnell  may  choose  to 
overlook  tliis  distinction,  and  claim  to  be  a  superuaturahst  because 
he  believes  God  is  in  nature,  but  he  remains  on  the  precise 
ground  occupied  by  those  who  are  wont  to  call  themselves  Ra- 
tionalists. 

We  have  already  adverted  to  the  difierence  which  may  exist 
between  what  a  book  teaches  and  what  its  author  believes.  Tliis 
book  to  our  apprehension  teaches  a  naturalistic  doctrine  concern- 
ing conversion.  The  author  asserts  that  he  holds  to  the  super- 
natural doctrine  on  that  subject.  He  is  of  course  entitled  to  the 
benefit  of  that  declaration.  All  we  can  say  is  that  he  seems  to 
use  the  terms  in  a  difierent  sense  from  that  in  which  they  are 
commonly  employed,  and  that  there  is  enough  of  a  rationalistic 

22 


338  BUSHNELL    ON    CHEISTIAN    NURTURE. 

cast  about  it  to  account  for  all  the  disapprobation  it  has  excited, 
and  to  justify  the  course  of  the  Massachusetts  committee.  For 
although  it  contains  much  important  truth  powerfully  presented, 
and  although  it  inculcates  principles,  considering  the  source 
whence  they  come,  of  no  little  significance  and  value,  yet  a  book 
which  in  its  apparent  sense  denies  everything  supernatural  in  re- 
ligion, could  hardly  be  expected  to  circulate  with  the  approbation 
of  any  orthodox  society. 

Having  presented  what  we  consider  the  true  ground  of  the 
admitted  connexion  between  believing  parents  and  their  children, 
and  considered  Dr.  Bushnell's  views  on  the  subject,  it  was  our 
purpose  to  call  attention  to  the  church  or  ritual  doctrine.  This 
however,  we  can  barely  state.  The  church  doctrine  admits 
original  sin,  and  the  insufficiency  of  nature,  or  of  any  power 
operating  in  nature,  for  the  regeneration  of  men.  This  power 
is  found  in  the  church.  As  all  men  partake  of  the  life  of  Adam, 
by  their  natural  birth,  so  they  are  made  partakers  of  the  life  of 
Christ  by  their  spiritual  birth.  He  by  his  incarnation  has  intro- 
duced a  new  principle  of  life,  which  continues  in  the  church 
which  is  his  body.  And  as  baptism  makes  ns  members  of  the 
church,  and  therefore  members  of  the  body  of  Christ,  it  thus 
makes  us  partakers  of  his  life.  Just  as  a  twig  engrafted  into  a 
tree  partakes  of  its  life,  so  a  child  engrafted  by  baptism  into  the 
church  partakes  of  the  life  of  Christ.  It  is  this  life  thus  super- 
naturally  communicated,  which  is  to  be  developed  by  Christian 
nurture,  and  not  any  thing  in  the  soul  which  it  has  by  nature. 
This  doctrine  is  presented  in  various  forms  more  or  less  gross  or 
philosophical,  according  to  the  character  and  training  of  its  ad- 
vocates. It  is  however  everywhere  essentially  the  same  whether 
propounded  at  Rome,  Oxford,  or  Berlin.  The  German  philosophi- 
cal form  of  the  doctrine  bids  fair  to  be  the  popular  one  in  this 
country,  and  is  advanced  with  the  contemptuous  confidence  which 
characterizes  the  school  whence  it  emanates.  Everything  which 
is  not  ritual  and  magical  is  pronounced  rationalistic.  Nothing  is 
regarded  as  spiritual  but  grace  communicated  by  external  acts  and 
contacts.  The  true  doctrine  of  Protestants  which  makes  faith  ne- 
cessary to  the  efiicacy  of  the  sacraments,  is  denounced  as  Puritan, 
which  is  rapidly  becoming  a  term  of  reproach.  This  doctrine  rests 
on  a  false  view  of  the  church.  The  external  body  of  professors  is 
not  the  body  of  Christ,  which  consists  only  of  believers.     Trans- 


BUSHNELL     ON    CHEISTIAN    NURTURE.  339 

ferring  to  the  former  the  attributes  and  prerogatives  which  belong 
to  the  latter,  is  the  radical  error  of  Romanism,  the  source  at 
once  of  its  corruption  and  power.  It  rests  also  on  a  false  view  of 
the  sacraments,  attributing  to  them  an  efficacy  independent  of 
faith  in  the  recipient.  It  assumes  a  false  theory  of  religion. 
Instead  of  the  free  unimpeded  access  of  the  soul  to  Christ,  we 
are  referred  to  the  external  church  as  the  only  medium  of  ap- 
proach. Instead  of  the  life  of  God  in  the  soul  by  the  indwelling 
of  the  Holy  Gliost,  it  is  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  the  second 
Adam  of  which  we  must  partake.  The  whole  doctrine  is  noth- 
ing but  a  form  of  the  physical  theory  of  rehgion.  It  is  a  new 
anthropology  palmed  upon  men,  as  the  gospel.  We  are  constantly 
reminded  of  the  remark  of  Julius  Muller  that  all  attempts  to 
spiritualize  nature,  end  in  materializing  spirit.  A  remark  which 
finds  a  striking  illustration  in  the  new  philosophy  in  its  dealings 
with  religion.  Its  most  spiritual  theories  serve  only  to  reduce 
the  principle  of  divine  life  to  the  same  category  with  animal  life, 
something  transmissible  from  parent  to  child,  or  from  priest  to 
people.  There  is  great  reason  to  fear  that  religion,  under  such 
teaching,  will  either  sink  into  the  formal  rituahsm  of  Rome,  or 
be  evaporated  into  the  mystic  rationalism  of  Germany.  Schleier- 
macher,  whose  views  are  so  zealously  reproduced,  and  between 
which  and  his  own  Dr.  Bushnell  seems  often  at  a  loss  to  choose, 
taught  that  Christ  introduced  a  new  life-principle  into  the  world. 
Human  nature  corrupted  in  Adam,  was  restored  to  perfection  in 
him.  That  life  still  continues  in  the  church,  just  as  the  life  of 
Adam  continues  in  the  race.  Christianity  is  the  perfection  of 
nature,  as  Christ  was  the  perfection  of  manhood.  It  is  not  with 
the  historical,  personal  Christ  that  we  have  communion,  any 
more  than  it  is  with  Adam  as  an  individual  man  with  whom  we 
have  to  do.  Both  are  reduced  to  a  mere  power  or  principle. 
Christ  as  the  Son  of  God  is  lost.  So  also  in  his  system  the  Holy 
Ghost,  is  not  a  divine  person,  but  "  the  common  spirit,"  or  com- 
mon sentiment  of  the  church  The  Holy  Spirit  has  no  existence 
out  of  the  Church,  and  in  it  is  but  a  principle.  In  this  way  all 
the  precious  truths  of  the  Bible  are  sublimated  into  unsubstan- 
tial philosophical  vagaries,  and  every  man  pronounced  a  Rational- 
ist, or  what  is  thought  to  be  the  same  thing,  a  Puritan,  who  does 
not  adopt  them. 

Though  we  have  placed  the  title  of  Dr.  Tyler's  Letter  to  Dr. 


340  BUSHNELL     ON     CHRISTIAN     NURTURE. 

Bushnell  at  the  liead  of  this  article,  the  course  of  our  remarks 
has  not  led  us  into  a  particular  consideration  of  it.  This  is  not 
to  be  referred  to  any  want  of  respect.  The  subject  unfolded  it- 
self to  us  in  the  manner  in  which  we  have  presented  it,  and  we 
should  have  found  it  inconvenient  to  turn  aside  to  consider  the 
particular  form  in  which  Dr.  Tyler  has  exhibited  substantially 
the  same  objections  to  Dr.  Bushnell's  book.  Dr.  T.  however 
seems  to  make  less  of  the  2)romise  of  God  to  parents  than  we  do, 
and  to  have  less  reliance  on  Christian  nurture  as  a  means  of  con- 
version. We  are  deeply  impressed  with  the  conviction  that  as 
to  both  of  these  points  there  is  much  too  low  a  doctrine  now  gen- 
erally prevailing.  And  it  is  because  Dr.  B.  urges  the  fact  of  the 
connexion  between  parents  and  children,  with  so  much  power, 
that  we  feel  so  great  an  interest  in  his  book.  His  philosophy  of 
that  fact  we  hope  may  soon  find  its  way  to  the  place  where  so 
much  philosophy  has  already  gone. 


XI. 


DOCTRINE   OF   THE   REFORMED    CHURCH 
ON  THE   LORD'S   SUPPER/ 

We  have  had  Dr.  Nevin's  work  on  the  "  Mystical  Presence"  on 
our  table  since  its  publication,  some  two  years  ago,  but  have 
never  really  read  it,  until  Avithin  a  fortnight.  We  do  not  sup- 
pose other  people  are  quite  as  bad,  in  this  respect,  as  ourselves. 
Our  experience,  however,  has  been  that  it  requires  the  stimulus 
of  a  special  necessity  to  cany  us  through  such  a  book.  Being 
called  upon  to  investigate  the  question,  what  was  the  real  doc- 
trine of  the  Keformed  church  on  the  Lord's  Supper  .?  we  natur- 
ally turned  to  Dr.  Nevin's  work,  and  we  gratefully  acknowledge 
the  assistance  derived  Irom  it.  We  differ  from  him  indeed,  essen- 
tially, as  to  the  whole  subject,  not  only  as  to  the  historical  ques- 
tion, but  as  to  what  is  the  true  doctrine.  We  are,  however,  on  that 
account  only  the  more  disposed  to  give  him  credit  for  the  dili- 
gence with  which  he  has  collected  materials  (though  almost  en- 
tirely on  one  side)  for  the  proper  decision  of  the  question.  So 
much  has  of  late  been  said  by  Dr.  Nevin  of  the  apostacy  of  the 
Reformed  church  ;  his  uniform  tone  is  so  disparaging,  if  not 
contemptuous,  when  speaking  of  all  the  branches  of  that  church, 
except  his  own  ;  the  charge  of  Puritanism  and  Rationalism  is  so 
constantly  flowing  from  his  pen,  that  he  has  reason,  we  think,  to 
be  surprised  that  all  this  has  been  so  long  endured  in  silence. 
We,  however,  do  not  propose  on  this  occasion  to  travel  out  of 
the  record,  or  do  more  than  endeavor  to  answer  the   quesion, 

'  Tlie  Mystical  Presence.  A  Vindication  of  the  Reformed  or  Galvinistic  Doctrine 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  By  the  Rev.  John  W.  Nevin,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Theology 
iu  the  Seminary  of  the  German  Reformed  Church.  Philadelphia:  J.  B.  Lippincott 
&  Co.     1846.    pp.  256. — Princeton  Review,  April,  1848. 


342  DOCTRINE    OF    THE    REFORMED    CHURCH 

What  is  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Eeformed  church  on  the  Lord's 
Supper  ?  Having  done  this,  however,  we  shall  give  our  reasons 
for  thinkina;  that  Dr.  Nevin  is  tenfold  further  from  the  doctrines 
of  our  common  fathers,  than  those  whom  he  commiserates  and 
condemns. 

It  is  confessedly  a  very  difficult  matter  to  obtain  clear  views  of 
what  was  the  real  doctrine  of  the  Eeformed  church  on  the  Lord's 
Supper,  during  the  sixteenth  century.  This  difficulty  arises  from 
various  sources.  The  subject  itself  is  mysterious.  The  Lord's 
Supper  is  by  all  Christians  regarded  as  exhibiting,  and,  in  the 
case  of  believers,  conffi-ming  their  union  with  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  Whatever  obscurity  rests  on  that  union,  must  in  a  mea- 
sure rest  on  this  sacrament.  That  union,  however,  is  declared  to 
be  a  great  mystery.  It  has  always,  on  that  account,  been  called 
the  mystical  union.  We  are,  therefore,  demanding  too  much 
when  we  require  all  obscurity  to  be  banished  from  this  subject. 
If  the  union  between  Christ  and  his  people  were  merely  moral, 
arising  from  agreement  and  sympathy,  there  would  be  no  mystery 
about  it  ;  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  the  symbol  of  that  union, 
would  be  a  perfectly  intelligible  ordinance.  But  the  Scriptures 
teach  that  our  union  with  Christ  is  far  more  than  this.  It  is  a 
vital  union  :  we  are  partakers  of  his  life,  for  it  is  not  we  that  live, 
but  Christ  that  liveth  in  us.  It  is  said  to  be  analogous  to  our 
union  with  Adam,  to  the  union  between  the  head  and  members 
of  the  same  body,  and  between  the  vine  and  its  branches.  There 
are  some  points  in  reference  to  this  subject,  with  regard  to 
which  almost  all  Christians  are  agreed.  They  agree  that  this 
union  includes  a  federal  or  representative  relation,  arising  from  a 
divine  constitution  ;  and  on  the  part  of  Christ,  a  participation 
of  our  nature.  He  that  sanctified  and  they  Avho  are  sanctified 
are  all  of  one.  On  this  account  he  calls  them  brethren.  Inasmuch 
as  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also,  himself, 
likewise  took  part  of  the  same,  (Heb.  ii.  11-14).  It  is  in  virtue 
of  his  assumption  of  our  nature  that  he  stands  to  us  in  the  inti- 
mate relation  here  spoken  of.  It  is  agreed,  further,  that  this 
union  includes  on  our  part  a  participation  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ. 
It  is  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
and  dwells  without  measure  in  him  as  our  head,  who  dwells  also 
in  his  people,  so  that  they  become  one  body  in  Christ  Jesus. 
They  are  one  in  relation  to  each  other,  and  one  in  relation  to  him. 


ON    THE    lord's    SUPPER.  343 

As  the  human  body  is  one  by  being  animated  and  pervaded  by 
one  soul,  so  Christ  and  his  people  are  one  in  virtue  of  the  in- 
dwelling of  one  and  the  same  Spirit,  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is 
further  agreed  that  this  union  relates  to  the  bodies  as  well  as  the 
souls  of  believers.  Know  you  not,  asks  the  apostle,  that  your 
bodies  are  the  members  of  Christ  ;  know  ye  not  that  your  body 
is  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  dwelleth  in  you  ?  The 
Westminster  Catechism,  therefore,  says  of  believers  after  death, 
that  their  bodies  being  still  united  to  Christ,  do  rest  in  their 
graves  until  the  resurrection.  This  union  was  always  represented 
as  a  real  union,  not  merely  imaginary  nor  simply  moral,  nor 
arising  from  the  mere  reception  of  the  benefits  which  Christ  has 
procured.  We  receive  Christ  himself,  and  are  in  Christ,  united 
to  him  by  the  indwelling  of  his  Spirit  and  by  a  living  faith.  So 
far  all  the  Keformed  at  least  agreed. 

Do  the  Scriptures  teach,  besides  all  this,  that  we  are  partakers 
of  the  human  nature,  of  the  real  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ  ? 
This  question  Komanists  and  Lutherans  answer  in  the  affirma- 
tive. They  teach  the  actual  reception  and  manducation  of  the 
real  body  of  Christ.  This  the  whole  Eeformed  church  denied,  in 
England,  Belgium,  and  Germany,  as  well  as  in  Switzerland.  But 
as  Christ  speaks  of  eating  his  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood,  and 
we  are  said  to  have  communion  in  them,  the  question  is,  in  what 
way  this  is  to  be  understood  ?  All  the  Eeformed  answered,  that 
by  receiving  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  is  meant  receiving 
their  virtue  or  efficacy.  Some  of  them  said  it  was  their  virtue  as 
broken  and  shed,  i.  e.,  their  sacrificial  virtue  ;  others  said,  it  was 
a  mysterious,  supernatural  efficacy  flowing  from  the  glorified  body 
of  Christ  in  heaven  ;  and  that  this  last  idea,  therefore,  is  to  be 
taken  into  the  account,  in  determining  the  nature  of  the  union 
between  Christ  and  his  people.  Apart,  therefore,  from  the  mys- 
teriousness  of  the  subject,  the  diversity  of  views  among  the 
Kefoi-med  themselves,  is  one  reason  of  the  difficulty  in  determin- 
ing the  real  doctrine  of  the  church  on  this  subject.  In  some  of 
the  confessions  we  have  the  one,  and  in  some  the  other  of  these 
modes  of  representation,  brought  to  view. 

Another  source  of  difficulty  is  found  in  the  fact,  that  almost 
all  the  Eeformed  confessions  were  framed  for  the  express  purpose 
of  compromise.  One  great  object  of  Calvin's  life,  was  to  prevent 
the  schism  between  the  two  branches  of  the  Protestant  church. 


344         DOCTKINE    OF    THE    REFORMED    CHURCH 

He  and  the  other  authors  of  these  symbols,  therefore,  were  con- 
stantly endeavoring  to  frame  a  statement  of  this  doctrine,  which 
all  parties,  Lutheran,  Zuinglian,  and  Calvinistic,  could  adopt. 
Union  was,  at  that  time,  a  matter  of  the  last  importance,  not 
only  on  religious  and  ecclesiastical  grounds,  hut  for  reasons  con- 
nected with  their  political  well-being  and  safety.  The  question 
about  the  Lord's  Supper,  was  the  only  one  which  kept  the  parties 
separate.  Here  Luther  was  inflexible  and  most  unreasonably 
violent.  The  Lutherans  were  at  this  time  far  more  numerous 
and  powerful  than  the  Keformed.  To  conciliate  Luther  was, 
therefore,  a  constant  object  of  desire  and  effort.  Conference  after 
conference  was  held  for  this  purpose.  The  Keformed  on  all  these 
occasions,  and  in  all  their  confessions,  went  as  far  as  possible  to 
meet  the  views  of  the  Lutherans.  It  is  not  wonderful,  therefore, 
that  their  language  should,  at  times,  be  hard  to  reconcile  with 
what  was  in  fact  the  real  doctrine  of  the  Keformed  church.  We 
find  Bucer  signing  a  formula  which  satisfied  Luther,  and  Beza 
signing  another,  which  satisfied  the  Komish  commissioners,  at 
Poissy.  It  is  fair  to  infer  from  these  historical  circumstances, 
that  while  the  Keformed  held  a  doctrine  which  admitted  of  ex- 
pression in  the  language  adopted,  it  might  be  much  more  simply 
and  intelligibly  expressed  in  other  terms.  And  we  find,  in  fact, 
that  as  soon  as  this  pressure  from  without  was  removed,  all 
ambiguity  as  to  the  Keformed  doctrine  as  to  the  Lord's  Supper 
ceased.  No  one  pretends  to  misunderstand  the  language  of 
Turretin  and  Pictet,  the  contemporaries  or  immediate  successors 
of  Beza.  This  suggests  a  third  source  of  difficulty  on  this  subject, 
the  ambiguity  of  the  terms  employed  in  these  confessions.  The 
words,  presence,  real,  true,  flesh  and  blood,  substance,  &c.,  are 
all  employed,  in  many  cases,  out  of  their  ordinary  sense.  We 
are  said  to  receive  the  true  body  and  blood,  but  nothing  material  ; 
the  substance,  but  not  the  essence  ;  the  natural  body,  but  only 
by  faith.  It  is  not  easy  to  unravel  these  conflicting  statements 
and  to  determine  what  they  really  mean.  Besides  all  this  it  is 
hard  to  tell  where  to  look  for  the  authoritative  exhibition  of  the 
Reformed  doctrine.  Shall  we  look  to  the  private  writings  of  the 
Reformers,  or  to  the  public  confessions  ?  If  to  the  latter,  shall 
we  rely  on  those  of  Switzerland  or  on  those  of  the  Palatinate, 
France,  or  Belgium  ?  These,  though  they  have  a  general  coinci- 
dence, dQ  not  entirely  agree.     Some  favor  one  interpretation,  and 


ON   THE  lokd's   suppek.  345 

some  another.  Dr.  Nevin  chooses  to  make  Calvm  tne  great 
authority,  and  pronounces  the  confessions  of  the  Swiss  churches 
"  chaotic  and  contradictory."  The  most  satisfactory  method  of 
proceeding,  as  we  conceive,  will  be  to  quote,  in  the  first  instance, 
those  authorities  which  represent  the  Swiss  views  ;  secondly, 
those  which  present  the  views  of  Calvin  ;  and,  thirdly,  those 
symbols  in  which  both  parties  concurred.  Having  done  this,  we 
propose  to  analyze  these  statements,  and  endeavor  to  determine 
their  meaning 

First  tJien,  the  Ztiinglian  vieio 

Zuingle'  says  :  "  The  Lord's  Sapper  is  nothing  else  than  the 
food  of  the  soul,  and  Christ  instituted  the  ordinance  as  a  memo- 
rial of  himself.  .  When  a  man  commits  himself  to  the  sufferings 
and  redemption  of  Christ,  he  is  saved.  Of  this  he  has  left  us  a 
certain  visible  sign  of  his  flesh  and  blood,  both  which  he  has 
commanded  us  to  eat  and  drink  in  remembrance  of  him."  This 
is  said  in  a  document,  presented  to  the  council  of  Zurich,  in 
1523.  In  his  LXVII  Articles  published  in  1523,  he  says,  briefly 
on  this  subject,  in  article  17,  "Christ  who  offered  himself  once 
upon  the  cross  is  the  eternally  sufficient  offering  and  sacrifice  for 
the  sins  of  all  believers.  Whence  it  follows  that  the  mass  is  not 
a  sacrifice,  but  the  commemoration  of  the  sacrifice  made  upon 
the  cross,  and,  as  it  were,  a  seal  of  the  redemption  efiected  by 
Christ."  In  the  "  Expositio  Chr.  Fidei,"  written  just  before  his 
death  and  published  by  BuUinger,  1531,  he  says  :  "  The  natural 
substantial  body  of  Christ  in  which  he  suffered,  and  in  which  he 
is  now  seated  in  heaven,  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  is  not  in  the 
Lord's  Supper  eaten,  corporeally,  or  as  to  its  essence,  but  spirit- 
ually only.  *  *  *  Spiritually  to  eat  the  body  of  Christ,  is 
nothing  else  than  with  the  Sfjirit  and  mind  to  rely  on  the  good- 
ness and  mercy  of  God  through  Christ.  *  ■'•'"  *  Sacrament- 
aily  to  eat  his  body,  is,  the  sacrament  being  added,  with  the 
mind  and  spirit  to  feed  upon  him.""  And  afterwards,  "  We  as- 
sert, therefore,  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  not  eaten  in  the  Sup- 

'  "We  use  the  name  of  Zuingle  to  characterize  the  form  of  doctrine  which  he  ac- 
tually taught,  and  which  was  adopted  in  the  church  of  Zurich,  of  which  he  was  the 
pastor ;  not  in  the  sense  in  which  the  term  Zuinghan  is  popularly  used,  to  designate 
what  was  really  the  Socinian  or  Remonstrant  doctrine  on  the  Sacraments. 

-  Niemcyer  Col.  Conf ,  pp.  44,  47. 


346  DOCTRINE    OF     THE    REFORMED     CHURCH 

per  in  a  gross  carnal  manner  as  the  Papists  pretend,  but  spirit- 
ually and  sacramentally,  with  a  devout,  believing,  and  holy  mind, 
as  St.  Chrysostom  says."  In  his  Epist.  ad  princip.  German.  (Op. 
II.,  p.  546),  he  uses  this  language  :  "  When  the  bread  and  wine, 
consecrated  by  the  very  words  of  Christ  are  distributed  to  the 
brethren,  is  not  the  whole  Christ,  as  it  were  sensibly  (if  words 
are  required,  I  will  say  more  that  I  am  wont  to  do)  presented  to 
the  senses  ?  But  how  ?  Is  the  natural  body  handled  and  eaten  ? 
By  no  means  ;  but  offered  to  the  mind  to  be  contemplated,  for 
the  senses  we  have  the  sacrament  of  this  thing.  *  *  *  We 
never  have  denied  that  Christ  is  sacramentally  and  in  mysterio 
present  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  well  on  account  of  believing 
contemplation,  as  the  whole  symbolical  service." 

The  confessions  which  most  nearly  conform  to  this  view  are  the 
Confessio  Tetrapolitana,  The  First  Basel,  and  The  First  Helvetic 
Confession.  All  these  are  apologetic.  The  last  named  protests 
against  the  representation  that  the  Keformed  regard  the  sacra- 
ments as  mere  badges  of  profession,  asserting  that  they  are  also 
signs  and  means  of  grace.  In  article  22,  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
called  ccena  mystica,  "  in  which  Christus  truly  offers  his  body 
and  blood,  and  hence  himself,  to  his  people  ;  not  as  though  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christi  were  naturally  united  with  the  bread 
and  wine,  or  locally  included  in  them,  or  sensibly  there  present, 
but  in  so  far  as  the  bread  and  wine  are  symbols,  through  which 
we  have  communion  in  his  body  and  blood,  not  to  the  nourish- 
ment of  the  body,  but  of  the  spiritual  or  eternal  life." 

The  most  concise  and  perspicuous  statement  of  this  form  of 
the  doctrine  is  to  be  found  in  "  The  Sincere  Confession  of  the 
ministers  of  the  church  of  Zurich,"  dated  1545.  Those  ministers 
say :  "  We  teach  that  the  great  design  and  end  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  that  to  which  the  whole  service  is  directed,  is  the  re- 
membrance of  the  body  of  Christ  devoted,  and  of  his  blood  shed 
for  the  remission  of  our  sins.  This  remembrance,  however,  can- 
not take  place  without  true  faith.  And  although  the  things,  of 
which  the  service  is  a  memorial,  are  not  visible  or  present  after  a 
corporal  manner,  nevertheless  believing  apprehension  and  the  as- 
surance of  faith  renders  them  present  in  one  sense,  to  the  soul  of 
the  behever.  He  has  truly  eaten  the  bread  of  Christ  *  *  * 
who  believes  on  Christ,  very  God  and  very  man,  crucified  for  us, 
on  whom  to  believe  is  to  eat,  and  to  eat,  to  believe.     *     "'•■     " 


ON  THE  lord's  stpper.  347 

Believers  have  in  the  Lord's  Supper  no  other  lifegiving  food  than 
that  which  they  receive  elsewhere  than  in  that  ordinance.  The 
believer,  therefore,  receives  both,  in  and  out  of,  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per in  one  and  the  same  way,  and  hy  the  same  means  of  faith, 
one  and  the  same  food,  Christ,  except  that  in  the  Supper  the  re- 
ception is  connected  with  the  actions  and  signs  appointed  by 
Christ,  and  accompanied  with  a  testifying,  thanksgiving,  and 
bindins:  service.  *  "••'•"  *  Christ's  flesh  has  done  its  work  on 
earth,  having  been  offered  for  our  salvation  ;  now  it  no  longer 
benefits  on  earth,  and  is  no  longer  here.'"  This  is  a  remarkably 
clear  and  precise  statement,  and  should  be  remembered  ;  for  we 
shall  find  Calvin  and  others  whose  language  is  often  so  different, 
avowing  their  concurrence  with  these  ministers  of  Zurich,  or  at 
least  uniting  with  them  in  the  statement  of  this  doctrine. 

Views  of  Calvin  and  of  the  Confession  formed  under  his 

influence. 

Inst.,  iv.,  17,  10.  "  We  conclude  that  our  souls  are  fed  by  the 
flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,  just  as  our  corporal  life  is  preserved  by 
bread  and  wine.  For  the  analogy  of  the  signs  would  not  hold, 
if  our  souls  did  not  find  their  aliment  in  Christ,  which,  however, 
cannot  be  the  case,  unless  Christ  truly  coalesce  into  one  with  us, 
and  support  us  through  the  use  of  his  flesh  and  blood.  It  may 
seem  incredible  indeed  that  the  flesh  of  Christ  should  reach  us 
from  such  an  immense  local  distance,  so  as  to  become  our  food. 
But  we  must  remember  how  far  the  secret  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  transcends  all  our  senses,  and  what  folly  it  must  be  even 
to  think  of  reducing  his  immensity  to  our  measure.  Let  faith 
embrace  then  what  the  understanding  cannot  grasp,  namely, 
.that  the  Spirit  unites  things  which  are  totally  separated.  Now 
this  sacred  communication  of  his  flesh  and  blood,  by  which 
Christ  transfuses  his  life  into  us,  just  as  if  he  penetrated  our 
bones  and  marrow,  he  testifies  and  seals  in  the  holy  supper  ;  not 
by  the  exhibition  of  a  vain  and  empty  sign,  but  by  putting  forth 
such  an  energy  of  his  Spirit  as  fulfils  what  he  promises.  What 
is  thus  attested  he  offers  to  all  who  approach  the  spiritual  ban- 
quet. It  is,  however,  fruitfully  received  by  believers  only,  who 
accept  such  vast  grace  with  inward  gratitude  and  trust." 

In  1561,  Calvin  wrote,  in  answer  to  the  Lutheran  Hesshuss, 

'  Guerichc :  Symbolik.,  s.  452. 


348  DOCTRINE    OF    THE    REFORMED    CHURCH 

and  with  a  view  to  unite  the  two  parties,  his  Tract  cle  vera  par- 
ticipatione  carnis  et  sanguinis  Christi  in  sacra  coena.  In  an  ap- 
pendix to  that  Tract,  he  says  :  "  The  same  body  then  which  the 
Son  of  God  once  offered  in  sacrifice  to  the  Father,  he  daily  offers 
to  us  in  the  supper,  that  it  may  be  our  spiritual  aliment.  Only 
that  must  be  held  which  was  intimated  as  to  the  mode,  that  it 
is  not  necessary  that  the  essence  of  the  flesh  should  descend  from 
heaven,  in  order  that  we  may  feed  upon  it ;  but  that  the  power 
of  the  Spirit  is  sufficient  to  penetrate  through  all  impediments 
and  to  surmount  all  local  distance.  At  the  same  time  we  do  not 
deny  that  the  mode  here  is  incomprehensible  to  human  thought ; 
for  flesh  naturally  could  neither  be  the  life  of  the  soul,"  nor  exert 
its  power  upon  us  from  heaven  ;  and  not  without  reason  is  the 
communication,  which  makes  us  flesh  of  his  flesh,  and  bone  of 
his  bones,  denominated  by  Paul  a  great  mystery.  In  the  sacred 
supper  we  acknowledge  it  a  miracle,  transcending  both  nature 
and  our  own  understanding,  that  Christ's  life  is  made  common 
to  us  A^dth  himself,  and  his  flesh  given  us  as  aliment." 

Again,  "  these  things  being  disposed  of,  a  doubt  still  appears 
with  respect  to  the  word  substance;  which  is  readily  allayed,  if 
we  put  away  the  gross  imagination  of  a  manducation  of  the  flesh, 
as  though  it  were  like  corporal  food,  which  lacing  put  into  the 
mouth,  is  received  into  the  stomach.  For  if  this  absurdity  be 
removed,  there  is  no  reason  why  w^e  should  deny  that  we  are  fed 
with  Christ's  flesh  substantially,  since  we  truly  coalesce  with 
him  into  one  body  by  faith,  and  are  thus  made  one  with  him. 
Whence  it  follows  we  are  joined  with  him  in  substantial  connec- 
tion, just  as  substantial  vigor  flows  down  from  the  head  into  the 
members.  The  definition  must  then  stand  that  we  are  made  to 
partake  of  Christ's  flesh  substantially  ;  not  in  the  way  of  carnal 
mixture,  or  as  if  the  flesh  of  Christ,  drawn  down  from  heaven 
entered  into  us,  or  were  swallowed  by  the  mouth  ;  but  because 
the  flesh  of  Christ,  as  to  its  power  and  efficacy,  vivifies  our  souls, 
not  otherwise  than  the  body  is  nourished  by  the  substance  of 
bread  wine." 

We  prefer  giving  these  extreme  passages  as  selected  by  Dr. 
Nevin,  instead  of  others  of  a  different  character,  which  could 
easily  be  gathered  from  Calvin's  works.  Those  of  the  latter  class, 
wlU  turn  up  in  their  appropriate  places.     We  proceed  to  quote 


ON    THE    lord's     SUPPER.  349 

some  of  the  confessions,  which  most  manifestly  bear  the  impress 
of  Calvin's  hand  or  spirit. 

The  Galilean  Confession  was  adoiDted  by  the  Protestants  of 
France,  in  1559.  In  the  36th  article  it  is  said  :  Quamvis  (Chris- 
tus)  nunc  sit  in  coelis,  ibidem  etiam  remansurus  donee  veniat 
mundum  judicaturus,  credimus  tamen,  eiim  arcana  et  incom- 
prehensibili  Spiritus  sui  virtute  nos  nutire  et  vivificare  sui  cor- 
poris et  sanguinis  substantia  per  fidem  apprebensa.  Dicimnr 
autem  hoc  spiritualiter  fieri,  non  ut  efficaciee  et  veritatis  loco  im- 
aginationem  aut  cogitationera  supponamus,  sed  potius,  quoniam 
hoc  mysterium  nostree  cum  Christo  coalitionis  tarn  sublime  est, 
ut  omnes  nostros  sensus  totumqe  naturae  ordinem  superet,  denique 
quoniam  sit  divinum  ac  coeleste,  non  nisi  fide  percipi  at  appre- 
hendi  potest. 

Art.  37.  Credimus,  sicut  antea  dictum  est,  tam  in  coena 
quam  in  baptismo,  Deum  nobis  reipsa,  id  est  vere  et  efficaciter 
donare  quicquid  ibi  sacramentaliter  figurat,  ac  proinde  cum  signis 
conjungimus  veram  possessionem  ac  fcuitionem  ejus  rei,  quae  ita 
nobis  offertur.  Itaque  affirmamus  eos  qui  ad  sacram  mensam 
Domini  puram  fidem  tanquam  vas  quoddam  afierunt,  vere  reci- 
pere  quod  ibi  signa  testificantur,  nempe  corpus  et  sanguinem 
Jesu  Christi,  non  minus  esse  cibum  ac  potum  animae,  quam 
panis  et  vinum  sunt  corporis  cibus. 

This  is  perhaps  the  proper  place  to  state,  though  not  in  chro- 
nological order,  that  at  a  meeting  of  the  National  Synod  of 
France,  in  1571,  Beza  being  president,  an  application  was  made 
by  certain  deputies  to  have  the  clause  in  Art.  37  altered,  which 
asserts  that  we  are  nourished  with  the  "  substance  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood."  The  synod  refused  to  make  the  alteration, 
and  explained  the  expression  by  saying,  they  did  not  understand 
by  it,  "  any  confusion,  commixture,  or  conjunction  *  *  ••'■■  but 
this  only,  that  by  his  virtue,  all  that  is  in  him  that  is  needful  for 
our  salvation,  is  hereby  most  freely  given  and  communicated  to 
us.  Nor  do  we  consent  with  them  who  say  we  do  communicate 
in  his  merits  and  gifts  and  spirit,  without  his  being  at  all  made 
ours  ;  but  with  the  apostle  (Eph.  v.  23),  admiring  this  supernat- 
ural, and  to  our  reason,  incomprehensible  mystery,  we  do  be- 
lieve we  are  partakers  of  his  body  delivered  to  death  for  us,  and 
of  his  blood  shed  for  us,  so  that  we  are  fiesh  of  his  flesh,  and  bone 
of  his  bones,  and  that  we  receive  him  together  with  his  gifts,  by 


350  DOCTRINE     OF    THE    REFORMED,  CHURCH 

faith  wrought  in  us  by  the  incomprcheusible  virtue  and  efficacy 
of  the  Holy  Spirit." '  This  decision  was  considered  by  the  minis- 
ters of  Zurich  as  involving  a  condemnation  of  their  doctrine,  and 
they  complained  of  it  accordingly.  The  following  year,  1572, 
therefore  the  Synod  decided,  that  though  they  chose  to  retain 
the  word  substance  in  the  sense  explained,  they  did  so  "  with- 
out prejudicing  those  foreign  churches,  which  for  reasons  best 
known  to  themselves  do  not  use  the  word  substance."  And  in- 
stead of  saying  as  they  had  done  the  year  before,  "  that  we  must 
truly  participate  in  the  second  Adam,  that  we  may  derive  life 
from  Mm;"  they  substitute  for  the  last  clause  the  words  : 
"that  by  mystical  and  spiritual  communication  with  him,  we 
may  derive  that  true  eternal  life."  "  And  the  Lord's  Supper," 
they  add,  "  is  principally  instituted  for  the  communication  of  it ; 
though  the  same  Lord  Jesus  be  offered  to  us  both  in  his  sub- 
stance and  gifts,  in  the  ministry  of  the  word  and  baptism,  and 
received  by  faith."* 

In  the  articles  adopted  by  the  Synod  of  London,  in  1552, 
and  sanctioned  by  the  authority  of  Edward  VI.,  the  article  on 
the  Lord's  Suj^per,  gives  in  the  first  clause  the  scriptural  lan- 
guage, "To  those  who  receive  it  worthily  and  with  faith,  the 
bread  which  we  break  is  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ," 
&c.  The  second  clause  rejects  transubstantiation.  The  third 
denies  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  and  asserts  that  as  Christ  is  in 
heaven,  uon  debet  quisquam  fidelium  carnis  ejus  et  sanguinis 
realem  et  corporalem  (ut  loquantur)  prtesentiam  in  eucharistia 
vel  credere  vel  profiteri. 

In  the  Thirty-nine  articles  of  the  church  of  England,  adopted 
in  1562,  the  article  on  the  Lord's  Supper  corresponds  in  purf)ort 
exactly  in  the  first  three  clauses,  with  the  article  of  Edward  VI. 
Then  follows  these  words  :  Corpus  Christi  datur,  accipitur,  et 
mauducatur  in  coena,  tantum  coeleste  et  spirituali  ratione.  Me- 
dium autem  quo  corpus  Christi  accipitur  et  manducatur  in  coena 
fides  est.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  Anghcan  confessions 
have  decidedly  a  more  Zuingiian  tone  than  those  of  any  other  of 
the  Reformed  churches.  This  may  in  part  be  accounted  for  by 
the  consideration  that  they  were  not  ironical,  drawn  up  to  con- 
ciliate Lutherans. 

In  the  Scotch  Con.  of  1560,  the  language  of  Calvin  is  in  a 

'  Quick's  Synodicon,  I.,  p.  92.  ^  Qiijek's  Sj-nodicon,  I.,  p.  104. 


ON    THE    lord's    SUPPER.  351 

great  measure  retained.  The  only  sentence  that  need  be  quoted 
is  the  following  :  "  We  confess  that  believers  in  the  right  use  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  thus  eat  the  body  and  drink  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  we  firmly  believe  that  he  dwells  in  them,  and  they 
in  him,  nay,  that  they  thus  become  flesh  of  his  flesh  and  bone  of 
his  bones.  For  as  the  eternal  deity  gives  life  and  immortality  to 
the  flesh  of  Christ,  so  also  his  flesh  and  blood,  when  eaten  and 
drunk  by  us,  confer  on  us  the  same  prerogatives." 

In  the  Belgic  Conf.  adopted  in  1563,  the  following  words 
occur,  Art.  35.  Christus  testificatur,  nos,  quam  vere  hoc  sacra- 
mentum  manibus  nostris  accipimus  et  tenemus,  illudque  ore 
comedimus  et  bibimus  (unde  et  postmodum  vita  nostra  sustenta- 
tur),  tarn  vere  etiam  nos  fide  (qua3  animee  et  manus  et  os  est)  in 
animis  nostris  recipere  verum  corj)us  et  verum  sanguinem  Christi, 
unici  servatoris  nostri  ad  vitam  nostram  spiritualem.  Nequa- 
quam  erraverimus  dicentes,  id  quod  comeditur  esse  proprium  et 
naturale  corpus  Christi,  idque  quod  bibitur  proprium  esse  san- 
guinem. At  manducandi  modus  talis  est,  ut  non  fiat  ore  corpo- 
ris, sed  spiritu  per  fidem.  It  is  not  necessary  to  quote  from 
other  Confessions  language  of  the  same  import  with  that  already 
quoted.  All  the  symbols  above  cited  contain  more  or  less  dis- 
tinctly the  impress  of  Calvin's  views,  if  we  except  perhaps  those 
of  the  church  of  England,  which  as  before  remarked,  are  more 
of  a  Zuinglian  cast.     We  come  now  to 

Those  symbols  in  lohich  both  Zuinglians  and  Galvinists  agreed. 

Perhaps  the  most  interesting  and  important  doctrine  of  this 
class  is  the  Consensus  Tigurinus.  Switzerland  had  long  been 
greatly  distracted  by  the  controversy  on  the  sacraments.  After 
much  persuasion  on  the  part  of  his  friends,  Calvin  was  induced 
to  go  to  Zurich  and  to  hold  a  conference  with  Bullinger,  in  1549. 
The  result  of  that  conference  was  the  adoption  of  the  articles 
previously  drawn  up  by  Calvin  himself,  and  afterwards  published 
with  the  title  :  "  Consentio  mutua  in  re  sacramentaria  Ministro- 
ruui  Tigurina3  EcclesicB,  et  D.  Joaunis  Calvini  Ministri  Geneven- 
sis  Ecclesiae,  jam  nunc  ab  ipsis  authoribus  edita."  We  have, 
therefore,  in  this  document  the  well  considered  and  solemnly  an- 
nounced agreement  of  the  Zuinglian  and  Calvinistic  portions  of 
the  Eeformed  church.  This  Consensus  was  soon  made  the  object 
of  vehement  attack  by  the  Lutherans.     Four  years  after  its  date, 


352         DOCTRINE     OF    THE    REFORMED     CHURCH 

Calvin  felt  himself  called  upon  to  publish  an  explanation  and  de- 
fence of  it.  In  his  letter,  prefixed  to  that  defence,  and  addressed 
to  the  ministers  of  Zurich  and  other  Swiss  churches,  he  says  : 
The  Lutherans  now  see  that  those  whom  they  denounce  as  Sacra- 
mentarians  agree,  and  then  adds,  Nee  vero  si  superstites  hodie 
essent  optimi  et  eximii  Christi  ser\i  Zuinglius  et  (Ecolampadius, 
verbulum  in  ea  sententia  mutarent.' 

This  Consensus  embraces  twenty-six  articles,  all  relating  to 
the  sacraments,  and  especially  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  these 
articles  there  is  not  a  word,  which  any  of  the  evangelical 
churches  of  the  present  day  would  desire  to  alter.  We  should 
like  to  print  them  all  as  the  confessions  of  our  own  faith  on  this 
whole  subject.  The  first  four  are  introductory.  The  fifth  de- 
clares the  necessity  of  our  union  with  Christ,  in  order  that  we 
should  partake  of  his  life.  The  sixth  declares  that  union  to  be 
spiritual,  arising  from  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit,  The  seventh 
sets  forth  the  design  of  the  sacraments.  They  are  declared  to  be 
badges  of  profession  and  Christian  communion,  excitements  to 
thanksgiving  and  to  the  exercise  of  faith,  and  to  holy  life,  and 
syiigrajjJice  binding  us  thereto.  Their  principal  end,  however, 
is  said  to  be  that  God  therein  may  testify  his  grace  to  us,  repre- 
sent and  seal  it.  For  though  they  signify  nothing  not  announced 
in  the  word,  still  it  is  a  great  thing,  that  they  present,  as  it  were, 
living  images  before  our  eyes,  and  which  affect  our  senses  and 
serve  to  lead  us  to  the  thing  signified,  while  they  recall  to  mind 
the  death  of  Christ  and  all  his  benefits,  that  our  faith  may  be 
called  into  exercise  ;  and  besides  this,  what  God  had  by  his 
mouth  declared,  is  here  confirmed  and  sealed.  The  eighth  de- 
clares that  God  inwardly  works  or  communicates  by  his  Spirit, 
the  blessings  signified  by  the  sacraments.  They  are,  therefore, 
as  stated  in  the  ninth  article,  not  naked  signs,  but  as  it  is  there 
expressed,  "  Though  we  distinguish,  as  is  proper,  between  the 
sign  and  things  signified,  we  do  not  disjoin  the  truth  (or  reality) 
from  the  signs  ;  since  all  who  by  faith  embrace  the  promises 
there  presented,  receive  Christ  with  his  spiritual  gifts."     In  the 

'  Compare  vnth  this  the  language  of  Dr.  Nevin,  who  endeavors  to  represent  the 
doctrine  of  Ciilvin  and  Zuingle  on  this  subject  to  be  as  wide  apart  as  the  poles.  He 
even  says :  ''  If  Calvinism,  the  system  of  Geneva,  necessarily  runs  here  into  Zuin- 
glianism,  we  may,  indeed,  well  despair  of  the  whole  interest.  For  most  assuredly  no 
church  can  stand,  that  is  found  to  be  constitutionallv  unsacrameniaV     P.  74. 


ON    THE    LORD^S    SUPPER.  353 

tenth  article,  it  is,  therefore  said,  we  should  look  at  the  promise 
rathei-  than  the  signs.  The  signs  without  Christ,  are  declared  in 
the  eleventh  article,  to  be  inanes  larvce.  The  articles  from  the 
twelfth  to  the  seventeenth,  both  included,  relate  to  the  efficacy 
of  the  sacraments.  It  is  denied  that  they  have  any  virtue  in 
themselves,  all  their  efficacy  is  referred  to  the  attending  power 
of  Grod,  which  is  exercised  only  in  the  elect,  and  therefore,  it  is 
added,  the  doctrine  that  the  sacraments  confer  grace  on  all  who 
do  not  oppose  the  obstacle  of  mortal  sin,  Mis  to  the  ground. 
In  the  eighteenth  it  is  stated  that  the  reason  why  the  sacra- 
ments fail  to  benefit  unbelievers  is  to  be  referred  to  their  want 
of  faith,  and  neither  to  the  sacraments,  which  always  retain  their 
integrity,  nor  to  God.  The'  nineteenth  teaches  that  the  bless- 
ings received  in  the  sacraments,  are  by  believers  received  on  other 
occasions.  And  moreover,  as  is  said  in  the  twentieth,  the  benefit 
received  from  the  sacraments,  is  not  to  be  restricted  to  the  time 
of  administration,  but  may  follow  long  afterwards.  Those 
baptized  in  infancy  are  often  regenerated  in  youth  or  even  old 
age.  In  the  twenty-first  art.  all  local  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
Eucharist  is  denied.  As  a  man  he  is  in  heaven,  and  is  present 
only  to  the  mind  and  faith.  The  twenty-second  states  that  the 
words  of  institution,  "  This  is  my  body,"  must  be  understood 
figuratively.  In  the  twenty-third,  it  is  taught  that  manducation 
of  Christ's  body  implies  no  mixture  or  transfusion  of  substance, 
but  the  derivation  of  life  from  his  body  and  blood  as  a  sacrifice. 
The  last  three  articles  are  directed  against  transubstantiation, 
the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  local  presence,  and  the  adoration  of 
the  host. 

The  force  of  this  document,  as  an  exhibition  of  the  true  doc- 
trine of  the  Keformed  church  on  this  whole  subject,  is  greatly 
impaired  in  this  meagre  outline.  We  shall,  however,  have  occa- 
sion to  refer  to  its  more  explicit  statements,  in  the  progress  of 
this  investigation.  The  next  witness  to  be  cited  is  the  Heidel- 
berg Catechism.  It  was  prepared  at  the  command  of  Frederick 
III.;  elector  of  the  Palatinate,  by  Caspar  Olevian,  a  discijjle  of 
Calvin,  and  Ursinus,  a  friend  of  Melancthon,  and  adopted  by  a 
general  synod  held  at  Heidelberg  in  1563.  This  catechism  hav- 
ing symbolical  authority,  both  in  the  German  and  Dutch  Reformed 
churches,  is  entitled  to  peculiar  respect  as  a  witness  to  the  faith 
of  the  Reformed  church. 


354  LOCTKINE     OF    THE    KEFORMED     CHURCH 

In  answer  to  the  66th  question  the  sacraments  are  declared  to 
be  "sacred  visible  signs  and  seals,  instituted  by  God,  that  through 
them  he  may  more  clearly  present  and  seal  the  promise  of  the 
gospel,  viz.  :  that  he,  for  the  sake  of  the  one  ofl'ering  of  Christ 
accomplished  on  the  cross,  grants  to  us  the  forgiveness  of  sin  and 
eternal  life." ' 

In  answer  to  the  following  question,  it  is  stated,  that  the  design 
both  of  tlie  word  and  sacraments  is  to  direct  our  faith  to  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ  on  the  cross  as  the  only  ground  of  our  faith. 

Question  75.  "  How  art  thou  reminded  and  assured,  in  the 
holy  supper,  that  thou  art  a  partaker  of  the  one  offering  of 
Christ  on  the  cross,  and  of  all  his  benefits  ?  Ans.  Thus,  that 
Christ  has  commanded  me  to  eat  of  this  broken  bread,  and  to 
drink  of  this  cup,  and  has  promised,  first,  that  as  surely  as  I  see 
with  my  eyes  the  bread  of  the  Lord  broken  for  me,  and  the  cup 
handed  to  me,  so  surely  was  his  body  broken  and  offered  for  me 
on  the  cross,  and  his  blood  shed  for  me.  Second,  that  he  himself 
as  certainly  feeds  and  nourishes  my  soul  to  eternal  life  with  his 
crucified  body,  and  shed  blood,  as  I  receive  from  the  hand  of  the 
minister,  and  after  a  coporal  manner  partake  of  the  bread  and 
wine,  which  are  given  as  the  symbols  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ." 

Ques.  76.  "  What  is  it  then  to  eat  the  crucified  body  and 
drink  the  shed  blood  of  Christ  ? 

"Ans.  It  is  not  only  to  embrace  with  a  believing  heart  all  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  Christ,  and  thereby  to  obtain  the  pardon 
of  sin  and  eternal  life  ;  but  also,  besides  that,  to  become  more 
and  more  united  to  his  sacred  body,  by  the  Holy  Grhost  who 
dwells  both  in  Christ  and  in  us  ;  so  that  we,  though  Christ  is  in 
heaven  and  we  on  earth,  are,  notwithstanding,  flesh  of  his  flesh 
and  bone  of  his  bones  ;  and  that  we  live  and  are  governed  for- 
ever by  one  Spirit,  as  the  members  of  the  same  body  are  by  one 
soul." 

In  the  answer  to  the  78th,  it  is  said  that  as  in  baptism  the 
water  is  not  changed  into  the  blood  of  Christ,  nor  is  itself  the 
ablution  of  sin,  but  the  symbol  and  pledge  of  those  things,  so  in 

>  There  is  some  slight  variation  as  to  phraseology,  between  the  German  and  Latin 
copies  of  this  catechism.  "We  unfortunately  have  not  the  authorized  Enghsh  version 
at  hand,  and  therefore  are  obliged  to  translate,  except  where  Dr.  Nevin  has  given 
tlie  P3nglish  version,  from  the  originals. 


ON    THE     lord's     SUPPER.  355 

the  Lord's  Supper  the  bread  is  not  the  body  of  Christ,  though 
from  the  nature  of  a  sacrament  and  usage  of  Scripture,  it  is  so 
called. 

In  answer  to  Ques.  79th,  it  is  said  that  the  bread  is  called 
Christ's  body,  &c.,  "  Not  only  thereby  to  teach  us  that  as  bread 
and  wine  support  this  temporal  life,  so  his  crucified  body  and  shed 
blood  are  the  true  meat  and  drink  whereby  our  souls  are  fed  unto 
eternal  life  ;  but  more  especially,  by  these  visible  signs  and 
pledges,  to  assure  us,  that  we  are  as  really  partakers  of  his  true 
body  and  blood  (by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost),  as  we  re- 
ceive by  the  mouths  of  our  bodies  these  holy  signs  in  remembrance 
of  him  ;  and  that  all  his  sufferings  and  obedience  are  as  certainly 
ours  as  if  we  had  in  our  own  persons  suffered  and  made  satisfac- 
tion for  our  sins  to  God." 

In  the  following  question.  What  is  the  difference  between  the 
Lord's  Supper  and  the  Popish  mass  ?  The  first  clause  of  the 
answer  is  :  "  The  supper  of  the  Lord  testifies  to  us  that  we  have 
perfect  remission  of  all  our  sins,  on  account  of  the  one  sacrifice 
of  Christ  which  he  himself  made  once  for  all  upon  the  cross  ;  and 
also  that  we,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  united  to  Christ,  who  accord- 
ing to  his  human  nature  is  only  in  heaven  at  the  right  hand  of 
the  Father,  and  is  there  to  be  adored  by  us." 

There  is  nothing  in  this  account  of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  which 
exception  would  even  now  be  taken.  There  is  something  in'  the 
answer  to  the  75th  question,  which  seems  evidently  intended  to 
cover  Calvin's  peculiar  opinion  of  a  miraculous  influence  from 
the  body  of  Christ  in  heaven,  but  it  is  also  as  evidently  intended 
to  cover  Bullinger's  view  on  that  subject.  It  is  language  to 
which  Zuingle  and  fficolampadius,  as  Calvin  says  on  another 
occasion,  would  not  object.  This  is  the  more  remarkable  when 
we  consider  the  historical  circumstances  under  which  this  cate- 
chism was  drawn  up,  and  its  decidedly  irenical  object.  No  part 
of  Germany  was  more  distracted  by  the  sacramentarian  contro- 
versy than  the  Palatinate.  Nowhere  was  greater  exertion  made 
to  conciliate  the  Lutherans  by  framing  expressions  which  they 
could  adopt.  Yet  this  catechism,  framed  under  these  circum- 
stances, teaches  nothing  to  which  the  ministers  of  Zurich  would 
be  unwilling  to  subscribe. 

The  only  other  public  symbol  which  it  is  necessary  to  cite,  is 
the  Second  Helvetic  Confession.     This,  on  some  accounts^  is  the 


356         DOCTRINE    OF    THE    REFORMED    CHURCH. 

most  authoritative  of  all  the  confessions  of  the  Reformed  church. 
It  was  drawn  up  by  Bullinger  in  1562.  In  1565,  the  Elector 
Frederick,  above  mentioned,  alarmed  by  the  furious  contentions 
in  his  dominions,  and  annoyed  by  the  misrepresentations  of  the 
Lutherans,  wrote  to  Bullinger  to  send  him  a  confession  which 
would  if  possible  unite  the  parties,  or  at  least  silence  the  clamors 
of  the  Lutherans,  and  which  the  Elector  might  present  at  the 
approaching  diet  of  the  empire  to  refute  the  calumnies  directed 
against  the  Reformed.  Bullinger  sent  this  confession  which  he 
had  prepared  some  years  before.  The  Elector  was  perlectly  well 
satisfied.  To  give  it  weight  it  was  then  sanctioned  by  the  Helvetic 
churches,  and  soon  became  one  of  the  most  generally  recognized 
standards  of  the  Reformed  in  all  parts  of  Europe.  What  it 
teaches  on  the  Lord's  Supper  is  entitled  to  be  regarded  as  a  fair 
exhibition  of  the  real  doctrine  of  the  church.  The  fact  that  it 
was  written  by  Bullinger,  the  successor  of  Zuingle,  at  Zurich,  the 
great  opponent  of  what  was  considered  peculiar  in  Calvin's  views 
of  this  subject,  would  lead  us  to  expect  to  find  in  it  nothing  but 
what  the  Zurich  ministers  could  cordially  adopt. 

In  the  19th  chapter  it  is  taught  concerning  the  sacraments  in 
general,  1.  That  they  are  mystic  symbols,  or  holy  rites,  or  sacred 
actions,  including  the  word,  signs,  and  the  things  signified. 
2.  That  there  were  sacraments  under  the  old  as  well  as  under  the 
new  economy.  3.  That  God  is  their  author,  and  still  operates 
through  them.  4.  That  Christ  is  the  great  object  presented  in 
them,  the  substance  and  matter  of  them,  the  lamb  slain  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world,  the  rock  of  which  all  our  fathers 
drank,  &c.  5.  Therefore,  as  far  as  the  substance  is  concerned, 
the  sacraments  of  the  two  dispensations  are  equal  ;  they  have  the 
same  author,  the  same  significaucy  and  effect.  6.  The  old  have 
been  abolished,  and  baptism  ond  the  Lord's  Supper  introduced  in 
their  place.  7.  Then  follows  an  exposition  of  the  constituent 
parts  of  a  sacrament.  First,  the  word,  by  which  the  elements 
are  constituted  sacred  signs.  Water,  bread,  and  wine,  are  in 
themselves,  apart  from  divine  appointment,  no  sacred  symbols. 
It  is  the  word  of  God  added  to  them,  consecrating  or  setting 
them  apart,  which  gives  them  their  sacramental  character. 
Secondly,  the  signs,  being  thus  consecrated,  receive  the  names  of 
the  things  signified.  Water  is  called  regeneration,  the  bread  and 
wine,  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  i.  e.,  the  symbols  or  sacra- 


ON    THE    LOED's    SUPPER,  357 

ments  of  his  body  and  blood.  They  are  not  changed  in  their 
own  nature.  They  are  called  by  the  names  of  the  things  signi- 
fied, because  the  two  are  sacramentally  united,  that  is,  united  by 
mystical  significance  and  divine  appointment.  8.  In  the  next 
paragraph  the  confession  rejects,  on  the  one  hand,  the  Romish 
doctrine  of  consecration  ;  and,  on  the  other,  the  opinion  of  those 
who  either  make  the  sacraments  mere  common  signs,  or  entirely 
useless.  9.  The  benefits  signified  are  not  so  included  or  bound 
to  the  sacraments,  that  all  who  receive  the  signs  receive  the 
things  signified  ;  nor  does  the  efficacy  depend  on  the  administra- 
tor ;  nor  their  integrity,  upon  the  receiver.  As  the  word  of  God, 
continues  his  word,  whether  men  believe  or  not,  so  it  is  with  the 
sacraments. 

The  21st  chapter  is  devoted  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  fol- 
lowing passages,  which  we  prefer  giving  in  the  original,  will  suf- 
fice to  exhibit  the  doctrine  here  taught  : 

Ut  autem  rectius  et  perspicacius  intelligatur,  quomodo  caro  et 
sanguis  Christi  sint  cibus  et  potus  fidelium,  percipianturque  a 
fidelibus  ad  vitam  ^eternam,  paucula  ha^c  adjiciemus.  Mandu- 
catio  non  est  unius  generis.  Est  enim  manducatio  corporalis,  qua 
cibus  in  os  percipitur  ab  homine,  dentibus  atteritur,  et  in  ventrem 
deglutitur.  *  *  *  Nothing  of  this  kind  of  course  is  admitted 
with  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Est  et  spiritualis  manducatio  corporis  Christi,  non  ea  quidem, 
qua  existimemus  cibum  ipsum  mutari  in  spiritum,  sed  qua,  ma- 
nente  in  sua  essentia  et  proprietate  corpoi'e  et  sanguine  Domini, 
ea  nobis  communicantur  spiritualiter,  utique  non  corporal!  mode, 
sed  spirituali,  per  spiritum  sanctum,  qui  videlicet  ea,  qua3  per 
carnem  et  sanguinem  Domini  pro  nobis  in  mortem  tradita,  parata 
sunt,  ipsam  inquam  remissionem  peccatorum,  liberationem,  et 
vitam  ffiternam,  applicat  et  confert  nobis,  ita  ut  Christus  in  nobis 
vivat,  et  nos  in  ipso  vivamus,  efticitque  ut  ipsum,  quo  talis  sit, 
cibus  et  potus  spiritualis  noster,  id  est,  vita  nostra,  vera  fide  per- 
cipiamus.  *  *  *  Et  sicut  oportet  cibum  in  uosmetipsos  edendo 
recipere,  ut  operatur  in  nobis,  suamquo  efiicaciam  exerat,  cum 
extra  nos  positus,  nihil  nobis,  prosit  ;  ita  necesse  est  nos  fide 
Christum  recipere,  ut  noster  fiat,  vivatqne  in  nobis,  et  nos  in 
ipso.  *  *  *  Ex  quibus  omnibus  claret  nos,  per  spiritualem 
cibum,  minime  intelligere  imaginarium,  nescio  quem,  cibum,  sed 
ipsum  Domini  corpus  pro  nobis  traditum,  quod  tamen  percipiatur 


358  DOCTRINE    OF     THE     REFORMED    CHURCH 

a  fidelibus,  non  corj)oraliter.  sed  spiritualiter  per  fidem.  *  *  * 
Fit  autem  hie  esus  et  potus  spiritualis,  etiam  extra  Domini 
cajnam,  et  quoties,  aut  ubicunque  homo  in  Christum  crediderit. 
Quo  fortassis  illud  Augustini  pertinet,  Quid  paras  dentem  et 
ventrem  ?  crede,  et  manducasti. 

Praeter  superiorem  manducationem,  spiritualem,  est  et  sacra- 
mentalis  manducatio  corporis  Domini,  qua  fidelis  non  tantum 
spiritualiter  et  interne  participat  vero  corpore  et  sanguine  Do- 
mini, sed  foris  etiam  accedendo  ad  mensam  Domini,  accipit  visi- 
bile  corporis  et  sanguinis  Domini  sacramentum. 

We  have  thus  furnished,  as  it  appears  to  us,  adequate  mate- 
rials for  a  clear  and  decided  judgment  as  to  what  was  the  real 
doctrine  of  the  Keformed  church  as  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  We 
propose  now  to  review  these  materials  and  apply  them  to  the  de- 
cision of  the  various  questions  agitated  on  this  subject. 

In  what  sense  is  Christ  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper  ? 

The  authorities  above  cited,  and  the  private  writings  of  the 
Keformed  theologians,  are  abundant  in  teaching  that  Christ  is 
present  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  They  represent  it  as  a  calumny, 
when  the  Lutherans  asserted  that  the  Reformed  regarded  the 
bread  and  wine  as  representing  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in 
no  other  sense  than  a  statue  represents  Hercules  or  Mercury. 
Zuingle  says,  We  have  never  denied  that  the  body  of  Christ  is 
sacramentally  and  mystically  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 
They  admitted  not  only  that  he  is  present  as  God  and  by  his 
Spirit,  but  in  an  important  sense  as  to  his  body  and  blood.  The 
whole  controversy  relates  to  this  latter  j)oint,  viz.,  to  the  mode 
in  which  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  present  in  the  Lord's 
Supper.  In  deciding  this  point,  the  Reformed  theologians  are 
very  accurate  in  determining  the  different  senses  in  which  a 
thing  may  be  said  to  be  present.  The  word  presence,  they 
say,  is  a  relative  term,  and  cannot  be  understood  without  refer- 
ence to  the  object  said  to  be  present,  and  the  subject  to  which  it 
is  present.  For  presence  is  nothing  but  the  application  of  an 
object  to  the  faculty  suited  to  the  perception  of  it.  Hence, 
there  is  a  twofold  presence,  viz.,  of  things  sensible  and  of  things 
spiritual.  The  former  are  present,  as  the  word  imports,  when 
they  are  prcE  sensibus,  so  as  to  be  perceived  by  the  senses  ;  the 
latter,  when  they  are  presented  to  the  intelligence  so  as  to  be 


ON    THE    lord's    SUPPER.  359 

apprehended  and  enjoyed.  Again,  presence  even  as  to  sensible 
objects  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  nearness.  It  stands  opposed 
not  to  distance,  but  to  absence.  The  sun  is  as  near  to  us  when 
absent  at  night,  as  when  present  by  day.  A  thing,  therefore, 
may  be  present  as  to  efficacy  and  -virtue,  which  is  at  a  great  dis- 
tance locally.  In  which  of  these  senses  are  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  present  in  the  Lord's  Su2)per  ?  All  the  Keformed,  in 
answer  to  this  question,  say  that  it  is  not  in  the  sense  of  local 
nearness.  The  bread  is  neither  transmuted  into  the  body  of 
Christ,  as  Komanists  say,  nor  is  his  body  locally  present  in,  with, 
and  under  the  bread,  according  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine.  The 
presence  is  to  the  mind,  the  object  is  not  presented  to  the  senses, 
but  apprehended  by  faith.  It  is  a  presence  of  virtue  and  efficacy 
not  of  propinquity.  All  these  statements,  both  negative  and 
positive,  are  found  in  the  authorities  referred  to  in  the  preceding 
pages.  The  Helv.  Conf.  chap.  21,  says  :  "  The  body  of  Christ  is 
in  heaven  at  the  right  hand  of  Grod.  *  *"  '•'■■  Yet  the  Lord  is 
not  absent  from  his  church  when  celebrating  his  Supper.  The 
sun  is  absent  from  us  in  heaven,  nevertheless  it  is  efficaciously 
present  with  us  ;  how  much  more  is  Christ,  the  Sun  of  righteous- 
ness, though  absent  as  to  the  body,  present  with  us,  not  corporal- 
ly indeed,  but  spiritually,  by  his  vivifying  influence."  Calvin,  in 
the  Consensus  Tigurinus,  art.  xxi.  says  :  "  Every  imagination  of 
local  presence  is  to  be  entirely  removed.  For  while  the  signs  are 
here  on  earth  seen  by  the  eyes  and  handled  by  the  hands,  Clirist, 
so  far  as  he  is  a  man  is  nowhere  else  than  in  heaven  ;  and  is  to 
be  sought  only  by  the  mind  and  by  faith.  It  is  therefore  an  ir- 
rational and  impious  superstition  to  include  him  in  the  eartlily 
elements."  In  the  10th  art.  it  is  taught  that  he  is  present  in  the 
promise,  not  in  the  signs. 

Ursinus,  the  principal  author  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism, 
in  his  exposition  of  that  formulary,  says  :  "  These  two,  the  sign 
and  the  thing  signified,  are  united  together  in  this  sacrament, 
not  by  any  copulation,  or  corporal  and  local  existence  of  one  in 
the  other,  much  less  by  transubstantiation,  or  changing  the  one 
into  the  other  ;  but  by  signifying,  sealing  and  exhibiting  the  one 
by  the  other.  That  is,  by  a  sacramental  union,  whose  bond  is 
the  promise  added  to  the  bread,  requiring  the  faith  of  the  re- 
ceivers. Whence  it  is  clear,  that  these  things  in  their  lawful 
use,  are  always  jointly  exliibit(xl  and  received,  but  not  without 


360  DOCTRINE     OF    THE     REFORMED     CHURCH 

faith  of  the  promise,  viewing  and  apprehending  the  thing  pro- 
mised, now  present  in  the  sacrament  ;  yet  not  present  or  in- 
cluded in  the  sign  as  in  a  vessel  containing  it ;  but  present  in 
the  promise,  which  is  the  better  part,  the  life  and  soul  of 
the  sacrament.  For  they  want  judgment  who  affirm  that 
Christ's  body  cannot  be  present  in  the  sacrament,  except  it  be 
in  or  under  the  bread  ;  as  if  forsooth,  the  bread  alone,  without 
the  promise,  were  either  the  sacrament,  or  the  principal  part  of 
the  sacrament." ' 

There  is,  therefore,  a  presence  of  Christ's  body  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  ;  not  local,  but  spiritual ;  not  for  the  senses  but  for  the 
mind  and  to  faith  ;  not  of  nearness  but  of  efficacy.  This  presence 
(as  Zuingle  said,  "if  they  want  words"),  the  Reformed  were 
willing  to  call  real;  if  by  real  was  understood  not  essential  or 
corporal,  but  true  and  efficacious,  as  opposed  to  imaginary  or  in- 
effective. So  far  as  this  point  is  concerned  there  is  no  doubt  as 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  church. 

What  is  meant  hy  feeding  on  the  body  and  hlood  of  Christ  ? 

This  question  does  not  relate  to  the  thing  received,  but  simply 
to  the  mode  of  receiving.  What  is  intended  by  sacramental 
manducation  ?  In  reference  to  this  point,  all  the  Reformed 
agreed  as  to  the  following  particulars  :  1.  This  eating  was  not 
with  the  mouth,  either  after  the  manner  of  ordinary  food,  which 
the  Lutherans  themselves  denied,  or  in  any  other  manner.  The 
mouth  was  not,  in  this  case,  the  organ  of  reception.  2.  It  is 
only  by  the  soul  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  received. 
3.  It  is  by  faith,  which  is  declared  to  be  the  hand  and  the  mouth 
of  the  soul.  4.  It  is  by  or  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
As  to  all  these  points  there  is  a  perfect  agreement  among  the  sym- 
bols of  the  Reformed  church.  Con.  Tig.  art.  23.  "  That  Christ 
feeds  our  souls  with  his  body  and  blood,  here  set  forth  by  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  not  to  be  understood  as  involving 
any  mixture  or  transfusion  of  substance,  but  that  we  derive  life 
from  his  body  once  offered  as  a  sacrifice,  and  from  his  blood  shed 
as  an  expiation."  Belgic  Con.  art.  35.  God,  it  is  said,  sent 
Christ,  as  the  true  bread  from  heaven,  "  which  nourishes  and  sus- 
tains the  spiritual  life  of  believers,  if  it  be  eaten  ;  that  is,  if  it  be 
applied  and  received  by  the  Spirit  through  faith."  Ursinus: 
'  Quoted  by  Dr.  Nevin,  p.  91. 


ON    THE    lord's    SUPPER.  361 

"  There  is  then  in  the  Lord's  Supper  a  double  meat  and  drink, 
one  external,  visible,  and  terrene,  namely,  bread  and  wine  ;  and 
another  internal.  There  is  also  a  double  eating  and  receiving  : 
an  external  and  signifying,  which  is  the  corporal  receiving  of  the 
bread  and  wine  ;  that  is,  that  which  is  performed  by  the  hands, 
mouth  and  senses  of  the  body ;  and  an  internal,  invisible,  and 
signified,  which  is  the  fruition  of  Christ's  death,  and  a  spiritual 
ingrafting  into  Christ's  body  ;  that  is,  which  is  not  performed  by 
the  hands  and  mouth,  but  by  the  spirit  and  faith." 

As  to  the  question  whether  there  is  any  difference  between 
eating  and  believing,  the  authorities  difier.  The  Zurich  confes- 
sion, and  the  Helv.,  quoted  above,  distinctly  say  there  is  not. 
The  former  says  :  "  Eating  is  believing,  and  believing  is  eating." 
The  latter  says  :  "  Tliis  eating  takes  place  as  often  and  when- 
ever a  man  believes  in  Christ."  So  the  Belgic  confession,  just 
quoted.  Calvin,  however,  makes  a  distinction  between  the  two  ; 
eating,  he  says,  is  not  faith,  but  the  effect  of  faith.  "  There  are 
some,"  he  says,  "  who  define  in  a  word,  that  to  eat  the  flesh  of 
Christ  and  to  drink  his  blood,  is  no  other  than  to  believe  on  Christ 
himself.  But  I  conceive  that  in  that  remarkable  discourse, 
in  which  Christ  recommends  us  to  feed  upon  his  body,  he  in- 
tended to  teach  us  something  more  striking  and  sublime  ;  namely, 
that  we  are  quickened  by  a  real  participation  of  him,  which 
he  designates  by  the  terms  eating  and  drinking,  that  no  person 
might  suppose  the  life  which  we  receive  from  him  to  consist 
in  simple  knowledge.  ■■•'■  "•••'  ■••'■  At  the  same  time,  we  confess 
there  is  no  eating  but  by  faith,  and  it  is  impossible  to  imagine 
any  other  ;  but  the  difference  between  me  and  those  whose  opin- 
ion I  now  oppose,  is  this,  *  *  *  they  consider  eating  to  be 
faith  itself,  but  I  apprehend  it  to  be  rather  a  consequence  of 
faith."  We  do  not  see  the  force  of  this  distinction.  It  all  de- 
pends upon  the  latitude  given  to  the  idea  of  f;xith.  If  you  restrict 
it  to  knowledge  and  assent,  there  is  room  for  the  distinction  be- 
tween eating  and  believing.  But  if  faith  includes  the  real 
appropriation  of  Christ,  it  includes  all  Calvin  seems  to  mean 
by  both  terms,  eating  and  believing.  This  question  is  of  no 
historical  importance.  It  created  no  diversity  of  opinion  in  the 
church. 

The  question,  whether  eating  the  flesh  of  Christ,  and  drinking 
his  blood  is  confined  to  the  Lord's   Supper  ;  in  other  words, 


362  DOCTRINE     OF     THE     REFORMED     CHURCH 

whether  there  is  any  special  benefit  or  communion  with  Christ 
to  be  had  there,  and  which  cannot  elsewhere  be  obtained,  the 
Eomanists  and  Lutherans  answer  in  the  affirmative  ;  the  Re- 
formed unanimously  in  the  negative.  They  make,  indeed,  a  dis- 
tinction between  spiritual  and  sacramental  manducation.  What 
is  elsewhere  received  by  faith,  without  the  signs  and  significant 
actions,  is  in  the  sacraments  received  in  connection  with  them. 
This  is  clearly  taught  in  the  confession  of  Zurich,  1545,  quoted 
above  ;  also  in  the  second  Helv.  confession  as  has  already  been 
shown.  That  confession  vindicates  this  doctrine  from  the  charge 
of  rendering  the  sacrament  useless.  For,  as  it  says,  though  we 
receive  Christ  once,  we  need  to  receive  him  continually  and  to 
have  our  faith  strengthened  from  day  to  day.  Calvin  teaches  the 
same  doctrine  in  the  Con.  Tig.  art.  19,  "  The  verity  which  is 
figured  in  the  sacraments,  believers  receive  extra  eorum  tisum. 
Thus  in  baptism,  Paul's  sins  were  washed  away,  which  had 
already  been  blotted  out.  Baptism  was  to  Cornelius  the  laver 
of  regeneration,  though  he  had  before  received  the  Spirit.  And 
so  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  Christ  communicates  himself  to  us, 
though  he  had  already  imparted  himself  to  us  and  dwells  within 
us."  The  office  of  the  sacraments  he  teaches  is  to  confirm  and 
increase  our  faith.  In  his  defence  of  this  Consensus,  he  expresses 
surprise  that  a  doctrine  so  plainly  proved  by  experience  and 
Scripture,  should  be  called  into  question.  (Niemeyer's  Col.,  p. 
212.)  In  the  decree  of  the  French  National  Synod  of  1572, 
already  quoted,  it  is  said,  "  The  same  Lord  Jesus  both  as  to  his 
substance  and  gifts,  is  offered  to  us  in  baptism  and  the  ministry 
of  the  word,  and  received  by  believers." 

We  find  the  same  doctrine  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  of 
the  church  of  England.  In  the  office  for  the  communion  of  the 
sick,  the  minister  is  directed  to  instruct  a  parishioner  who  is  pre- 
vented receiving  the  sacrament,  "  that  if  he  do  truly  repent  him 
of  his  sins,  and  steadfastly  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  hath  sufiered 
death  for  him  on  the  cross,  and  shed  his  blood  for  his  redemp- 
tion, earnestly  remembering  the  benefits  he  hath  thereby,  and 
giving  him  hearty  thanks  therefor,  he  doth  eat  and  drink  the 
body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ  profitably  to  his  soul's 
health,  though  he  do  not  receive  the  sacrament  with  his  mouth." 
On  this  point  there  was  no  diversity  of  opinion  in  any  part  of  the 
Reformed  church.     There  was  no  communion  of  Christ,  no  par- 


ON    THE    lord's     SUPPER.  363 

ticipation  of  his  body  and  blood,  not  offered  to  believers  and  re- 
ceived by  them,  elsewhere  than  at  the  Lord's  table  and  by  other 
means.  This  is  exalting  the  grace  of  God  without  depreciating 
the  value  of  the  sacraments. 

What  is  meant  by  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  as  received  in  the 

sacrainent  ? 

The  language  employed  in  answer  to  this  question  is  very 
various.  It  is  said,  we  received  Christ  and  his  benefits,  his  flesh 
and  blood,  his  true  body,  his  natural  body,  his  substance,  the 
substance  of  his  flesh  and  blood.  All  these  forms  of  expression 
occur.  Calvin  says,  we  receive  the  substance  of  Christ.  The 
Grallican  Confession  says,  "  We  are  fed  with  the  substance  of  his 
body  and  blood."  The  Belgic  Confession,  That  we  received  "  his 
natural  body."  The  question  is.  What  does  this  mean  ?  There 
is  one  thing  in  which  all  parties  agreed,  viz.,  that  our  union  with 
Christ  was  a  real  union,  that  we  receive  him  and  not  his  bene- 
fits merely  ;  that  he  dwells  in  his  people  by  his  Spirit,  whose 
presence  is  the  presence  of  Christ.  Though  all  meant  this,  this 
is  not  all  that  is  intended  by  the  expressions  above  cited.  What 
is  meant  by  saying  we  receive  his  flesh  and  blood,  or  the  sub- 
stance of  them  ?  The  negative  answer  to  this  question  given  by 
the  Reformers  uniformly  is,  they  do  not  mean  that  we  partake 
of  the  material  particles  of  Christ's  body,  nor  do  they  express 
any  mixture  or  transfusion  of  substance.  The  afiirmative  state- 
ment is,  in  general  terms,  just  as  uniform,  that  these  expressions 
indicate  the  virtue,  efficacy,  life-giving  power  of  his  body.  But 
there  are  two  ways  in  which  this  was  understood.  Some  intended 
by  it,  not  the  virtue  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  as  flesh  and 
blood,  but  their  virtue  as  a  body  broken  and  of  blood  as  shed, 
that  is,  their  sacrificial,  atoning  efficacy.  Others,  however,  in- 
sisted that  besides  this  there  was  a  vivifying  efficacy  imparted  to 
the  body  of  Christ  by  its  union  with  the  divine  nature,  and  that 
by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  believer  in  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per and  elsewhere,  received  into  his  soul  and  by  faith  this  myste- 
rious and  supernatural  influence.  This  was  clearly  Calvin's  idea, 
though  he  often  contented  himself  with  the  expression  of  the 
former  of  these  views.  His  doctrine  is  fully  expressed  in  the 
following  passages.  "  We  acknowledge,  without  any  circumlocu- 
tion that  the  flesh  of  Christ,  is  life-giving,  not  only  because  once 


J 


364  DOCTRINE    OF     THE    REFORMED     CHURCH 

in  it  our  salvation  was  obtained  ;  but  because  now,  we  being 
united  to  him  in  sacred  union,  it  breathes  life  into  us.  Or,  to 
use  fewer  words,  because  being  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit  en- 
grafted into  the  body  of  Christ,  we  have  a  common  life  with 
him  ;  for  from  the  hidden  fountain  of  divinity  life  is,  in  a  won- 
derful way,  infused  into  the  flesh  of  Christ  and  thence  flows 
out  to  us."  Again  ;  "  Christ  is  absent  from  us  as  to  the  body  ; 
by  his  Spirit,  however,  dwelling  in  us,  he  so  lifts  us  to  himself  in 
heaven,  that  he  transfuses  the  life-giving  vigor  of  his  flesh  into 
us,  as  we  grow  by  the  vital  heat  of  the  sun."  From  these  and 
many  similar  passages,  it  is  plain,  Calvin  meant  by  receiving  the 
substance  of  Christ's  body,  receiving  its  virtue  or  vigor,  not 
merely  as  a  sacrifice,  but  also  the  power  inherent  in  it  from  its 
union  with  the  divine  nature,  and  flowing  from  it  as  heat  from 
the  sun. 

The  other  explanation  of  this  matter  is,  that  by  receiving  the 
substance  of  Christ's  body,  or  by  receiving  his  flesh  and  blood, 
was  intended  receiving  their  life-giving  efficacy  as  a  sacrifice  once 
ofiered  on  the  cross  for  us.  This  view  is  clearly  expressed  in  the 
Zurich  Confession  of  1545.  ''  To  eat  the  bread  of  Christ  is  to 
believe  on  him  as  crucified.  '••"  *  *  His  flesh  once  benefited 
us  on  earth,  now  it  benefits  here  no  longer,  and  is  no  longer  here." 
The  same  view  is  expressed  by  Calvin  himself  in  the  Con.  Tig., 
1549.  In  the  19th  article  we  are  said  to  eat  the  flesh  of  Christ, 
"  because  we  derive  our  life  from  that  flesh  once  ofiered  in  sacri- 
fice for  us,  and  from  his  blood  shed  as  an  expiation."  With 
equal  clearness  the  same  idea  is  presented  in  the  Heidelberg  Cat- 
echism, 1560.  In  question  79,  it  is  his  crucified  body  and  shed 
blood  which  are  declared  to  be  the  food  of  the  soul.  The  same 
thing  is  still  more  plainly  asserted  in  the  Helv.  Confession,  1566, 
c.  21.  In  the  first  jiaragraph,  it  is  said,  "  Christ  as  delivered 
unto  death  for  us  and  as  a  Saviour  is  the  sum  of  this  sacrament." 
In  the  third  paragraph  this  eating  is  explained  as  the  applica- 
tion, by  the  Spirit,  of  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death.  And  lower 
down,  the  food  of  the  soul  is  declared  to  be  caro  Christi  tradita 
fro  nobis,  et  sanguis  ejus  effusus  pro  nobis.  Indeed,  as  this  con- 
fession was  written  by  Bullinger,  minister  of  Zurich,  the  great 
opponent  of  Calvin's  peculiar  view,  it  could  not  be  expected  to 
teach  any  other  doctrine.  In  what  is  called  the  Anglican  Con- 
fession, drawn  up  by  Bishop  Jewell,  1562,  the  same  view  is  pre- 


ON  THE   lokd's   suppek.  365 

sented.  It  is  there  said  :  "  We  maintain  that  Clirist  exhibits 
himself  truly  present,  *  *  ■'••■  that  in  the  Supper  we  feed  upon 
him  by  faith  and  in  the  spirit  {fide  et  spiritu),  and  that  we  have 
eternal  life  from  his  cross  and  blood."  To  draw  life  from-  the 
cross  is  here  the  same  as  to  draw  it  from  his  blood,  and  of  course 
must  refer  to  the  sacriticial  efficacy  of  his  death. 

The  question  now  arises  which  of  the  two  views  above  stated 
is  entitled  to  be  regarded  as  the  real  doctrine  of  the  Keformed  ? 
The  whole  church  united  in  saying  believers  receive  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ.  They  agreed  in  explaining  this  to  mean 
that  they  received  the  virtue,  efficacy,  or  vigor  of  his  body  and 
blood.  But  some  understood,  thereby,  the  virtue  of  his  body  as 
broken  and  of  his  blood  as  shed,  that  is,  their  sacrificial  efficacy. 
Others  said  that  besides  this,  there  was  a  mysterious  virtue  in  the 
body  of  Christ  due  to  its  union  with  the  divine  nature,  which 
virtue  was  by  the  Holy  Spirit  conveyed  to  the  believer.  Which 
of  these  views  is  truly  symbolical  ?  The  fairest  answer  to  this 
question  probably  is.  Neither,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other.  Those 
who  held  to  the  one,  expressed  their  fellowship  with  those  who 
held  the  other.  Calvin  and  BuUinger  united  in  the  Consensus 
Tisurinus  from  which  the  latter  view  is  excluded.  Both  views 
are  expressed  in  the  public  confessions.  Some  have  the  one, 
some  the  other. 

But  if  a  decision  must  be  made  between  them,  the  higher  au- 
thority is  certainly  due  to  the  doctrine  of  sacrificial  efficacy  first 
mentioned.  1.  It  has  high  symbolical  authority  in  its  favor.  Its 
being  clearly  expressed  in  the  Con.  Tig.  the  common  platfoitn  of 
the  church,  on  this  whole  subject,  and  in  the  Second  Helv.  Con. 
the  most  authoritative  of  all  the  symbols  of  the  Eeformed  church, 
and  even  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  outweighs  the  private 
authority  of  Calvm  or  the  dubious  expression  of  the  Gallician, 
Belgic,  and  some  minor  Confessions.  2.  What  is  perhaps  of 
more  real  consequence,  the  sacrificial  view  is  the  only  one  that 
harmonizes  with  the  other  doctrines  of  the  church.  The  other  is 
an  uncongenial  foreign  element  derived  partly  from  the  influence 
of  previous  modes  of  thought,  partly  from  the  dominant  influence 
of  the  Lutherans  and  the  desire  of  getting  as  near  to  them  as 
possible,  and  partly,  no  doubt,  from  a  too  literal  interpretation 
of  certain  passages  of  Scripture,  especially  John  vi.  54 — 58,  and 
Eph.  V.  30.     It  is  difficult  to  reconcile  the  idea  that  a  life-giving 


366  DOCTEINE    OF    THE    REFORMED    CHURCH 

influence  emanates  from  the  glorified  body  of  Christ,  with  the 
universally  received  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  church,  that  we  re- 
ceive Christ  as  fully  through  the  ministry  of  the  word  as  in  the 
Lord's  Supper.  However  strongly  some  of  the  Reformed  asserted 
that  we  partake  of  the  true  or  natural  body  of  Christ,  and  are 
fed  by  the  substance  of  his  flesh  and  blood,  they  all  maintained 
that  this  was  done  whenever  faith  in  him  was  exercised.  Not  to 
urge  this  point,  however.  All  the  Reformed  taught,  Calvin, 
perhaps,  more  earnestly  than  most  others,  that  our  union  with 
Christ  since  the  incarnation  is  the  same  in  nature  as  that  enjoyed 
by  the  saints  under  the  old  dispensation.  This  is  perfectly  intel- 
ligible if  the  virtue  of  his  flesh  and  blood,  which  we  receive  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  is  its  virtue  as  a  sacrifice,  because  he  was  the 
Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  His  sacrifice  was 
as  effectual  for  the  salvation  of  Abraham  as  of  Paul,  and  could 
be  appropriated  as  fully  by  the  faith  of  the  one  as  by  that  of  the 
other.  But  if  the  virtue  in  question  is  a  mysterious  power  due 
to  the  hypostatical  union,  flowing  from  Christ's  body  in  heaven, 
it  must  be  a  benefit  peculiar  to  believers  living  since  the  incarna- 
tion. It  is  impossible  that  those  living  before  the  advent  could 
partake  of  Christ's  body,  in  this  sense,  because  it  did  not  then 
exist  ;  it  had  not  as  yet  been  assumed  into  union  with  the  divine 
nature.  We  find,  therefore,  that  Romanists  and  nominal  Pro- 
testants, make  the  greatest  distinction  as  to  the  relation  of  the 
ancient  saints  to  God  and  that  of  believers  since  the  advent,  be- 
tween the  sacraments  of  the  one  dispensation  and  those  of  the 
other.  All  this  is  consistent  and  necessary  on  their  theory  of  the 
incarnation,  of  the  church,  and  of  the  sacraments,  but  it  is  all  in 
the  plainest  contradiction  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  church.' 
Here  then  is  an  element  which  does  not  accord  with  the  other 
doctrines  of  that  church  ;  and  this  incongruity  is  one  good  reason 
for  not  regarding  it  as  a  genuine  portion  of  its  faith. 

Another  good  reason  for  this  conclusion  is,  that  the  doctrine 
almost  immediately  died  out  of  the  church.  It  had  no  root  in  the 
system  and  could  not  live.  We  hear  nothing  from  the  immediate 
successors  of  Calvin  and  Beza,  of  this  mysterious,  or  as  it  was 
sometimes  called,  miraculous  influence  of  Christ's  heavenly  body. 
Turrettin,  Beza's  contemporary,  expressly  discards  it.     So  does 

'If  any  one  doubts  this  assertion,  let  him  read  Calvin's  Institutes  B.  iv.  c.  14.  § 
20 — 25.     This  subject  however  will  oome  up  in  another  place. 


ON    THE    lord's    SUPPER.  367 

Pictet,  who  followed  Turrettin,  and  so  do  the  Eeformed  theolo- 
gians as  a  body.'  As  a  single  indication  of  this  fact  we  refer  to 
Craig's  catechism,  written  under  an  order  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  the  church  of  Scotland,  of  1590,  and  sanctioned  by  that 
body  in  1592.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Scotch  confession 
of  1560,  before  quoted,  follows  the  very  language  of  Calvin  on 
this  particular  point.  In  Craig's  catechism,  however,  we  have 
the  following  exhibition  of  the  subject :  "  Ques.  What  signifieth 
the  action  of  the  supper  ?  Ans.  That  our  souls  are  fed  spirit- 
ually by  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  John  vi.  54.  Ques. 
71.  When  is  this  done  .?  A.  When  we  feel  the  efficacy  of  his 
death  in  our  conscience  by  the  spirit  of  faith.  John  vi.  33. 
*  *  *  Ques.  75.  Is  Christ's  body  in  the  elements  ?  A.  No, 
but  it  is  in  heaven.  Acts  i.  11.  Ques.  76.  Why  then  is  the 
element  called  his  body.  A.  Because  it  is  a  sure  seal  of  his 
body  given  to  our  souls  T'  In  the  "  Confession  of  Faith  used  in 
the  English  congregation  of  Greneva,"  the  very  first  in  date  of  the 
symbols  of  the  Scotch  church,  it  is  said  :  ''  So  the  supper  de- 
clareth  that  God,  a  provident  Father,  doth  not  only  feed  our 
bodies,  but  also  nourishes  our  souls  with  the  graces  and  benefits 
of  Jesus  Christ,  which  the  Scriptures  calleth  eating  of  his  flesh 
and  drinking  of  his  blood." 

It  is  of  course  admitted  that  a  particular  doctrine's  dying  out 
of  the  faith  of  a  church,  is,  of  itself,  no  sufficient  evidence  that  it 
was  not  a  genuine  part  of  its  original  behef  This  is  too  obvious 
to  need  remark.  There  is,  however,  a  great  difierence  between  a 
doctrine's  being  lost  by  a  process  of  decay  and  by  the  process  of 
growth.  It  is  very  possible  that  a  particular  opinion  may  be  en- 
grafted into  a  system,  without  having  any  logical  or  vital  union 
with  it,  and  is  the  more  certain  to  be  ejected,  the  more  vigorous 
the  growth  and  healthful  the  life  of  that  system.  The  funda- 
mental principles  of  Protestantism  are  the  exclusive  normal 
authority  of  Scripture,  and  justification  by  faith  alone.  If  that 
system  lives  and  grows  it  must  throw  off  every  thing  incompati- 
ble with  those  principles.     It  is  the  fact  of  this  peculiar  view  of 

'  We  had  transcribed  various  autliorities  as  to  this  point,  but  are  obliged  to  exclude 
them  for  the  want  of  space.  We  refer  the  reader  only  to  Turrettin's  statement  of  the 
question  as  between  the  Reformed  and  Lutherans,  where  he  will  see  this  whole  mat- 
ter ventilated  with  that  masterly  discrimination  for  which  Turrettin  is  unrivaled. 
Theol.  Elenet.  III.  p.  567. 


368  DOCTKINE     OF    THE    REFORMED    CHURCH 

a  mysterious  influence  of  the  glorified,  body  of  Christ,  having 
ceased  to  Kve,  taken  in  connection  with  its  obvious  incompati- 
bility with  other  articles  of  the  Reformed,  faith,  that  we  urge  as  a 
collateral  argument  against  its  being  a  genuine  portion  of  that 
system  of  doctrine.  According  to  the  most  authoritative 
standards  of  the  Reformed  church,  we  receive  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  as  a  sacrifice,  just  as  Abraham  and  David  received 
them,  who  ate  of  the  same  spiritual  meat  and  drank  of  the  same 
spiritual  drink.  The  church  is  .one,  its  life  is  one,  its  food  is  one, 
from  Adam  to  the  last  of  the  redeemed. 

What  is  the  effect  of  receiving  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  ? 

This  question  is  nearly  allied  to  the  preceding.  In  general 
terms  it  is  answered  by  saying,  that  union  with  Christ,  and  the 
consequent  reception  of  his  benefits,  is  the  effect  of  the  believing 
reception  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  the  Basel  confession,  it  is 
said,  "  So  that  we,  as  members  of  his  body,  as  our  true  head,  live 
in  him  and  he  in  us."  The  Greneva  catechism  says  the  effect  is 
"  That  we  coalesce  with  him  in  the  same  life."  The  Scotch 
Confession  says,  "  We  surely  believe  that  he  abides  in  them  (be- 
lievers) and  they  in  him,  so  that  they  become  flesh  of  his  flesh 
and  bone  of  his  bones."  The  Heidelberg  catechism  has  much 
the  same  words,  adding,  "  and  ever  live  and  are  governed  by  one 
spirit,  as  the  members  of  our  body  by  one  soul."  The  Second 
Helv.  Confession  says,  the  effect  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is,  such 
an  application  of  the  purchase  of  Christ's  death  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  "  that  he  lives  in  us  and  we  in  him."  So  the  Ang.  Con- 
fession and  others. 

In  explaining  the  nature  of  this  union  between  Christ  and  his 
people,  the  Reformed  standards  reject  entirely,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  every  thing  like  corporeal  contact,  or  the  mixture  or  trans- 
fusion of  substance.  The  proof  of  this  point  has  already  been 
sufficiently  presented.  We  add  only  the  language  of  Calvin.  He 
says  in  opposition  to  the  Lutherans  :  "  If  they  insist  that  the 
substance  of  Christ's  flesh  is  mingled  with  the  soul  of  man,  in 
how  many  absurdities  do  they  involve  themselves  ?"'  See,  also, 
his  Inst.  iv.  17,  32.  In  this  negative  statement,  as  to  the  nature 
of  this  union,  all  the  Reformed  agreed.  They  agreed  also  in  the 
affirmative  statement  that  we   receive   Christ  himself  and  not 

'  See  his  Defence  of  the  Consensus  Tigurinus. 


ON    THE    lord's    SUPPER.  369 

merely  his  benefits.  The  union  with  Christ  is  a  real,  and  not  an 
imaginary  or  merely  moral  one.  This  is  often  expressed  by 
saying  we  receive  the  substance  of  Christ,  i.  e.,  as  they  explain 
it,  Christ  himself,  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  whom  he  dwells  in  his 
people.*  Their  common  mode  of  representation  is  that  contained 
in  the  Con.  Tig.  Hasc  spiritualis  est  communicatio  quam  habemus 
cum  filio  Dei,  dum  Spiritu  suo  in  nobis  habitans  faciat  credentes 
omnes,  omnium,  qua3  in  se  resident,  bonorum  compotes.  The 
mode  in  which  this  subject  is  represented  in  Scripture  and  in  the 
Keformed  standards,  is,  that  when  the  Holy  Spirit  comes  to  one 
of  God's  chosen  with  saving  poT%^er,  the  soul  is  regenerated  ;  the 
first  exercise  of  its  new  life  is  faith  ;  Christ  is  thereby  received  ; 
the  union  with  him  is  thus  consummated  ;  and  on  this  foUows 
the  imputation  of  righteousness  and  all  saving  benefits. 

The  only  question  is,  whether  besides  this  union  effected  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  there  is  on  our  part  any  participation  of  Christ's 
human  body,  or  of  his  human  nature  as  such.  This  takes  us  back 
to  the  question  already  considered,  relating  to  the  mode  of  recep- 
tion and  the  thing  received,  when  it  is  said  in  Scripture,  that  we 
eat  the  flesh  and  drink  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  Man.  As  to  these 
questions,  it  will  be  remembered  the  Keformed  agreed  as  to  the 
following  points :  1.  That  this  reception  is  by  the  soul.  2. 
Through  faith,  not  through  the  mouth.  3.  By  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  4.  That  this  receiving  Christ's  body  is  not  confined 
to  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  takes  place  whenever  laith  in  him  is 
exercised.  5.  That  it  was  common  to  believers  before  and  after 
the  coming  of  the  Son  of  God  in  the  flesh.  We  have  here  a 
complete  estoppel  of  the  claim  of  the  authority  of  the  Reformed 
church  in  behalf  of  the  doctrine  that  our  union  with  Christ  in- 
volves a  participation  of  his  human  body,  nature,  or  life.     If  it 


'  All  these  forms  of  expressions,  illustrated  and  interchanged  as  they  are  in  the 
Confessions,  occur  also  in  the  early  Reformed  theologians.  Thus  Turrettin  says  : 
"  The  union  between  Christ  and  us  is  never  in  Scripture  spoken  of  as  bodily,  but 
spiritual  and  mystical,  which  can  only  be  by  the  Spirit  and  faith."  Tom.  III.  p.  576. 
"  The  bond  of  our  union  *  *  *  jg  on  the  part  of  Christ  the  efficacious  operation 
of  his  Spirit,  on  our  part,  faith,  and  thence  love."  P.  578.  This  union,  he  adds,  is 
called  substantial  and  essential  in  reference  to  its  verity.  He  asserts  that  we  receive 
"  the  substance  of  Christ."  "  Because  Christ  is  inseparable  from  his  benefits.  The 
believers  under  the  Old  Testament  are  correctly  said  to  have  been  made  partakers  of 
Christ  himself^  and  so  of  his  body  and  blood,  which  were  present  to  their  faith ; 
henco  they  are  said  to  have  drunk  of  that  rock,  which  was  Christ  "   P.  580. 

24 


370         DOCTRINE    OF    THE    REFORMED     CHURCH 

be  asked,  however,  in  what  sense  that  church  teaches  that  we  are 
flesh  of  Christ's  flesh,  and  bone  of  his  bones  ?  the  answer  is,  in 
the  same  sense  in  which  Paul  says  the  same  thing.  And  his 
meaning  is  very  plain.  He  tells  us  that  a  husband  should  love  his 
wife  as  his  own  body.  He  that  loveth  his  wife  loveth  himself 
His  wife  is  himself,  for  the  Scriptures  say,  they  are  one  flesh.  All 
this  he  adds,  is  true  of  Christ  and  his  people.  He  loves  the  church 
as  himself.  She  is  his  bride  ;  flesh  of  his  flesh  and  bone  of  his 
bones.  If  the  intimate  relationship,  the  identification  of  feelings, 
affections,  and  interests,  between  a  man  and  his  wife,  if  their 
spiritual  union,  justifies  the  assertion  that  they  are  one  flesh,  far 
more  may  the  same  thing  be  said  of  the  spiritual  relation  between 
Christ  and  his  people,  which  is  much  more  intimate,  sublime  and 
mysterious,  arising,  as  it  does,  from  the  inhabitation  of  one  and 
the  same  Spirit,  and  producing  not  only  a  union  of  feeling  and 
afiection,  but  of  life.  The  same  apostle  tells  us  that  believers 
are  one  body  and  members  one  of  another,  not  in  virtue  of  their 
common  human  nature,  nor  because  they  all  partake  of  the  hu- 
manity of  Christ,  but  because  they  all  have  one  Spirit.  Such, 
as  we  understand  it,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  church  and 
of  the  Bible  as  to  the  mystical  union. 

What  efficacy  belongs  to  the  Lord's  Supper  as  a  Sacrament  ? 

On  this  point  the  Reformed,  in  the  first  place,  reject  the 
Romish  doctrine  that  the  sacraments  contain  the  grace  they  sig- 
nify, and  that  they  convey  that  grace,  by  the  mere  administration, 
to  all  who  do  not  oppose  an  obstacle.  Secondly,  the  Lutheran 
doctrine,  which  attributes  to  the  sacraments  an  inherent  super- 
natural power,  due  indeed  not  to  the  signs,  but  the  word  of  God 
connected  with  them,  but  which  is  nevertheless  always  operative, 
provided  there  be  faith  in  the  receiver.  Thirdly,  the  doctrine  of 
the  Socinians  and  others,  that  the  sacraments  are  mere  badges  of 
profession,  or  empty  signs  of  Christ  and  his  benefits.  They  are 
declared  to  be  efficacious  means  of  grace  ;  but  their  efficacy,  as 
such,  is  referred  neither  to  any  virtue  in  them  nor  in  him  that 
administers  them,  but  solely  to  the  attending  operation  or  influ- 
ence of  the  Holy  Spirit,  precisely  as  in  the  case  of  the  word.  It 
is  the  virtus  Spiritus  Sancti  extrinsecus  accedens,  to  which  aU 
their  supernatural  or  saving  efficacy  is  referred.  They  have,  in- 
deed, the  moral  objective  power  of  significant  emblems  and  seals 


ON   TUE   lord's   supper.  371 

of  divine  appointment,  just  as  the  word  has  its  inherent  moral 
power  ;  but  their  efficacy  as  means  of  grace,  their  power,  in 
other  words,  to  convey  grace,  depends  entirely,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  word,  on  the  co-operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Hence  the 
power  is  in  no  way  tied  to  the  sacraments.  It  may  be  exerted 
without  them.  It  does  not  always  attend  them,  nor  is  it  confined 
to  the  time,  place,  or  service.  The  favorite  illustration  of  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  is  drawn  from  the  history  of  the  woman  who 
touched  the  hem  of  our  Saviour's  garment.  As  there  was  always 
supernatural  virtue  in  him,  which  flowed  out  to  all  who  appHed 
to  him  in  faith,  so  there  is  in  the  sacraments.  The  Reformed 
doctrine  is  illustrated  by  a  reference  to  our  Saviour's  anointing  the 
eyes  of  the  blind  man  with  the  clay.  There  was  no  virtue  in  the 
clay  to  make  the  man  see,  the  effect  was  due  to  the  attending 
power  of  Christ.  The  modern  rationalists  smile  at  these  distinc- 
tions and  say  it  all  amounts  to  the  same  thing.  These  three 
views  however  are  radically  different  in  themselves,  and  have 
produced  radically  different  effects,  where  they  have  severally 
prevailed. 

All  the  points,  both  negative  and  positive,  included  in  the 
statement  of  the  Reformed  doctrine,  above  given,  are  clearly 
presented  with  perfect  unanimity  in  their  symbolical  books.  In 
the  Gall.  Conf.,  art.  34,  it  is  said,  "  We  acknowledge  that  these 
external  signs  are  such,  that  through  them  God  operates  by  the 
power  of  his  Holy  Spirit."  Helv.  Conf.  ii.  c.  19,  "  We  do  not 
sanction  the  doctrine  that  grace  and  the  things  signified  are  so 
bound  to  the  signs  or  included  in  them,  that  those  who"  receive 
the  signs  receive  also  the  blessings  they  represent.  When  this 
fails,  the  fault  is  indeed  in  the  receiver,  just  as  in  the  case  of  the 
word  ;  God  in  both  offers  his  grace.  His  word  does  not  cease  to 
be  true  and  divine,  nor  do  the  sacraments  lose  their  integrity, 
because  men  do  not  receive  them  in  faith  and  to  their  salvation. 
See  ch.  21,  at  the  end.  The  Consensus  Tigurinus  teaches,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  that  the  sacraments  have  no  virtue  in 
themselves,  as  means  of  grace  :  Si  quid  boni  nobis  per  sacramen- 
ta  confertur,  id  non  Jit  propria  eoi'umvirtute.  '•'  *  ■'•'"  Deusenim 
solus  est,  qui  Spiritu  suo  agit.  Art.  12.  In  the  following  ar- 
ticles it  is  taught  that  they  benefit  only  believers,  that  grace  is 
not  tied  to  them,  that  believers  receive  elsewhere  the  same 
grace,  and  that  the  blessing  often  follows  long  after  the  adminis- 


372  DOCTRINE    OF    THE    REFORMED    CHURCH 

tration.  The  Scotch  Conf.  ch.  21,  teaches  that  the  whole  benefit 
flows  "  from  faith  apprehending  Christ,  who  alone  renders  the 
sacraments  efficacious."  In  the  Geneva  Cat.  the  question  is  asked: 
"  Do  you  believe  that  the  power  and  efficacy  of  the  sacrament, 
instead  of  being  included  in  the  element,  flow  entirely  from  the 
Spirit  of  God  ?  Ans.  So  I  believe,  that  is,  should  it  please  the 
Lord  to  exercise  his  power  through  his  own  instruments  to  the 
end  to  which  he  has  appointed  them."  It  is  not  worth  while  to 
multiply  quotations,  for  as  to  this  point,  there  was  no  diversity 
of  opinion.  We  would  only  refer  the  reader  to  Calvin's  Inst,  iv, 
14,  a  passage,  which  though  directed  against  the  Eomanists,  has 
a  much  wider  scope.  He  there  declares  it  to  be  a  purely  dia- 
bolical error  to  teach  men  to  expect  justification  from  the  sacra- 
ments, instead  of  from  faith  ;  and  insists  principally  on  two  things, 
first,  that  nothing  is  conferred  through  the  sacraments  beyond 
what  is  offered  in  the  word  ;  and,  secondly,  that  they  are  not  ne- 
cessary to  salvation,  the  blessings  may  be  had  without  them.  He 
confirms  his  own  doctrine  by  the  saying  of  Augustin  :  Invisibilem 
sanctificationem  sine  visibili  signo  esse  posse,  et  visibile  rursum 
sisrnum  sine  vera  sanctificatione. 

Such  then,  as  we  understand  it,  is  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Re- 
formed church  on  the  Lord's  Supper.  By  the  Reformed  church, 
we  mean  the  Protestant  churches  of  Switzerland,  the  Palatinate, 
France,  Belgium,  England,  Scotland  and  elsewhere.  According 
to  the  public  standards  of  these  churches  :  The  Lord's  Supper  is 
a  holy  ordinance  instituted  by  Christ,  as  a  memorial  of  his  death, 
wherein,  under  the  symbols  of  bread  and  wine,  his  body  as  broken 
for  us  and  his  blood  as  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins,  are  signified, 
and,  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  sealed  and  applied  to  be- 
lievers ;  whereby  their  union  with  Christ  and  their  mutual  fel- 
lowship are  set  forth  and  confirmed,  their  faith  strengthened,  and 
their  souls  nourished  unto  eternal  life. 

Christ  is  really  present  to  his  people,  in  this  ordinance,  not 
bodily,  but  by  his  Spirit  ;  not  in  the  sense  of  local  nearness,  but 
of  efficacious  operation.  They  receive  him,  not  with  the  mouth, 
but  by  faith  ;  they  receive  his  flesh,  not  as  flesh,  not  as  material 
particles,  nor  its  human  life,  but  his  body  as  broken  and  his  blood 
as  shed.  The  union  thus  signified  and  effected,  between  him 
and  them  is  not  a  corporeal  union,  nor  a  mLxture  of  substances, 
but  spiritual  and  mystical,  arising  from  the  indwelling  of  the 


ON    THE    LOKD's     SUPPER.  373 

Spirit.  The  ef3&cacy  of  this  sacrament,  as  a  means  of  grace,  is 
not  in  the  signs,  nor  in  the  service,  nor  in  the  minister,  nor  in 
the  word,  but  solely  in  the  attending  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  we  believe  to  be  a  fair  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Re- 
formed church. 

Dr.  Nevin's  TJieory^ 

Having  aheady  exceeded  the  reasonable  limits  of  a  review,  we 
cannot  pretend  to  do  more  in  our  notice  of  Dr.  Nevin's  book, 
than  as  briefly  as  possible  state  his  doctrine  and  assign  our  rea- 
sons for  considering  it  a  radical  rejection  of  the  doctrine  and 
theology  of  the  Reformed  church.  It  is  no  easy  thing  to  give  a 
just  and  clear  exhibition  of  a  theory  confessedly  mystical,  and 
which  involves  some  of  the  most  abstruse  points  both  of  anthro- 
pology and  theology.  "We  have  notliing  to  do  however  with  any 
thing  beyond  this  book.  We  do  not  assume  to  know  how  all 
these  things  lie  in  Dr.  Nevin's  mind  ;  how  he  reduces  them  to 
unity,  or  reconciles  them  with  other  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  Our 
concern  is  only  with  that  part  of  the  system  which  has  here 
cropped  out.  How  the  strata  lie  underneath,  we  cannot  tell.  Dr. 
Nevin,  in  the  full  consciousness  of  the  true  nature  of  his  own 
system,  says  the  difficulties  under  which  Calvin's  theory  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  labors,  are  "  all  connected  with  psychology,  ap- 
plied either  to  the  person  of  Christ  or  to  the  persons  of  his  people." 
P,  156.  The  difference  then  lies  in  the  region  of  psychology. 
That  science  has  assumed  a  new  form.  It  has  made  great  prog- 
ress since  the  Reformation.  '^  Its  determinations,"  he  says, 
"  have  a  right  to  be  respected  in  any  inquiry  which  has  tliis  sub- 
ject for  its  object.  No  such  inquiry  can  deserve  to  be  called 
scientific,  if  it  fails  to  take  them  into  view."  P.  162.  There  may 
be  truth  in  that  remark.  It  is,  however,  none  the  less  signifi- 
cant as  indicating  the  nature  of  the  system  here  taught.  It  is  a 
peculiar  psychology  aj)plied  to  the  illustration  and  determination 
of  Christian  doctrine.  It  is  founded  on  certain  views  of  "  organic 
law,"  of  personality,  and  of  generic  and  individual  life.  If  these 
scientific  determinations  are  incorrect,  the  doctrine  of  this  book 

'  In  calling  the  theory  in  question  by  Dr.  Nevin's  name,  we  do  not  mean  to 

charge  him   with   having  originated  it.     This  he  does  not  claim,  and  we  do  not 

assert  It  is,  as  we  understand  it,  the  theory  of  Schleiermacher,  so  far  as  Dr.  Nevin 
goes. 


i 


374  DOCTRINE     OF     THE     REFORMED    CHURCH 

is  gone.  It  has  no  existence  apart  from  those  determinations,  or 
at  least  independent  of  them.  Our  first  object  is  to  state,  as 
clearly  as  we  can,  what  the  theory  is. 

There  is  an  organic  law  of  life  which  gives  unity  wherever  it 
exists,  and  to  all  the  individuals  through  which  it  manifests  it- 
self. The  identity  of  the  human  body  resides  not  in  the  matter 
of  which  it  is  composed,  but  in  its  organic  law.  The  same  is 
true  of  any  animal  or  plant.  The  same  law  may  comprehend  or 
reveal  itself  in  many  individuals,  and  continually  propagate  and 
extend  itself.  Hence  there  is  a  generic  as  well  as  an  individual 
life.  An  acorn  developed  into  an  oak,  in  one  view  is  a  single 
existence  ;  but  it  includes  a  life  which  may  produce  a  thousand 
oaks.  The  life  of  the  forest  is  still  the  life  of  the  original  acorn, 
as  truly  one,  inwardly  and  organically,  as  in  any  single  oak.  Thus 
in  the  case  of  Adam  ;  as  to  his  individual  life,  he  was  a  man,  as 
to  his  generic  life,  he  was  the  whole  race.  The  hfe  of  all  men 
is  at  least  one  and  the  same.  Adam  lives  in  his  posterity  as  truly 
as  he  ever  lived  in  his  own  person.  They  participate  in  his 
whole  nature,  soul  and  body,  and  are  truly  bone  of  his  bone  and 
flesh  of  his  flesh.  Not  a  particle  of  his  body  indeed  has  come 
down  to  us,  the  identity  resolves  itself  into  an  invisible  law. 
But  this  is  an  identity  far  more  real  than  mere  sameness  of  par- 
ticles. So  also  in  the  case  of  Christ.  He  was  not  only  a  man, 
but  tlie  man.  He  had  not  only  an  individual  but  a  generic  life. 
The  Word  in  becoming  flesh,  did  not  receive  into  personal  union 
with  himself  the  nature  of  an  individual  man,  but  he  took  upon 
himself  our  common  nature.  The  divinity  was  joined  in  per- 
sonal union  with  humanity.  But  wherever  there  is  personality 
there  is  unity,  A  person  has  but  one  life.  Adam  had  not  one 
life  of  the  soul  and  another  of  the  body.  There  is  no  such  dual- 
ism in  our  nature.  Soul  and  body  are  but  one  hfe,  the  self-same 
organic  law.  The  soul  to  be  complete,  to  develop  itself  as  a 
soul,  must  externalize  itself,  and  this  externalization  is  the 
body.  It  is  all  one  process,  the  action  of  one  and  the  same  living 
organic  principle.  The  same  is  true  as  regards  Christ.  If  he  is 
one  person,  he  has  one  life.  He  has  not  one  life  of  the  body, 
another  of  the  soul,  and  another  of  his  divinity.  It  is  one  un- 
divided life.  We  cannot  partake  of  the  one  without  partaking 
of  the  others.  We  cannot  be  united  to  him  as  to  his  body,  with- 
out being  united  also  with  his  soul  and  divinity.     His  life  is  one 


ON    THE    lord's    SUPPER.  375 

and  undivided,  and  is  also  a  true  human  life.  This  is  communi- 
cated to  his  people.  The  humanity  of  Adam  is  raised  to  a  higher 
character  by  its  union  with  the  divine  nature,  but  remains,  in  all 
respects,  a  true  human  life. 

The  application  of  these  psychological  principles  to  the  whole 
scheme  of  Christian  doctrine  is  obvious  and  controlling.  In  the 
first  place,  the  fall  of  Adam  was  the  fall  of  the  race.  Not  sim- 
ply because  he  represented  the  race,  but  because  the  race  was 
comprehended  in  his  person.  Sin  in  him  was  sin  in  humanity 
and  became  an  insurmoun  table  law  in  the  progress  of  its  develop- 
ment. It  was  an  organic  ruin  ;  the  ruin  of  our  nature  ;  not 
simply  because  all  men  are  sinners,  but  as  making  all  men  sin- 
ners. Men  do  not  make  their  nature,  their  nature  makes  them. 
The  human  race  is  not  a  sand  heap  ;  it  is  the  power  of  a  single 
life.  Adam's  sin  is  therefore  our  sin.  It  is  imputed  to  us,  indeed, 
but  only  because  it  is  ours.  We  are  born  with  his  nature,  and 
for  this  reason  only  are  born  also  into  his  guilt.  "  A  fallen  life 
in  the  first  place,  and  on  the  ground  of  this  only,  imputed  guilt 
and  condemnation."  Pp.  164,  191,  &c.,  &c. 

In  the  second  place,  in  order  to  our  salvation  it  was  requisite 
that  the  work  of  restoration  should  not  so  much  be  wrought 
for  us  as  in  us.  Our  nature,  humanity,  must  be  healed,  the 
power  of  sin  incorporated  in  that  nature  must  be  destroyed.  For 
this  purpose  the  Logos,  the  divine  Word,  took  our  humanity 
into  personal  union  with  himself.  It  was  ouv fallen  humanity  he 
assumed.  Hence  the  necessity  of  suffering.  He  triumphed  over 
the  evil.  His  passion  was  the  passion  of  humanity.  This  was 
the  atonement.  The  principle  of  health  came  to  its  last  struggle 
with  the  principle  of  disease,  and  gained  the  victory.  Our  nature 
was  thus  restored  and  elevated,  and  it  is  by  our  receiving  this 
renovated  nature,  that  we  are  saved.  Christ's  merits  are  insepar- 
able from  his  nature,  they  cannot  be  imputed  to  us,  except  so 
far  as  they  are  immanent  in  us.  As  in  the  case  of  Adam,  we 
have  his  nature,  and  therefore  his  sin  ;  so  we  have  the  nature  of 
Christ  and  therefore  his  righteousness.  The  nature  we  receive 
from  Christ  is  a  theanthropic  nature.  For,  as  before  remarked, 
being  one  person,  his  life  is  one.  "His  divine  nature  is  at  the 
same  time  human,  in  the  fullest  sense."  P.  174.  All  that  is  in- 
cluded in  him  as  a  person,  divinity,  soul,  and  body,  are  embraced 
in  his  life.  It  is  not  the  life  of  the  Logos  separately  taken,  but  the 


376  DOCTRINE     OF    THE    REFORMED     CHURCH 

life  of  the  Word  made  flesh,  the  divinity  joined  in  personal  union 
with  our  humanity  ;  which  is  thus  exalted  to  an  imperishable 
divine  life.  It  is  a  divine  human  life.  In  the  person  of  Christ, 
thus  constituted,  the  true  ideal  of  humanity  is  brought  to  view. 
Christ  is  the  archetypal,  ideal  man.  The  incarnation  is  the 
proj)er  completion  of  humanity,  "  Our  nature  reaches  after  a 
true  and  real  union  with  the  nature  of  God,  as  the  necessary 
complement  and  consummation  of  its  own  life.  The  idea  which 
it  embodies  can  never  be  fully  actualized  under  any  other  form." 
P.  201. 

In  the  third  place,  divine  human  nature  as  it  exists  in  the 
person  of  Christ,  passes  over  into  the  church.  He  is  the  source 
and  organic  principle  of  a  new  life  introduced  into  the  centre  of 
liumanity  itself.  A  new  starting-point  is  found  in  Christ.  Our 
nature  as  it  existed  in  Adam  unfolded  itself  organically,  in  his 
posterity  ;  in  like  manner,  as  it  exists  in  Christ,  united  with  the 
divine  nature,  it  passes  over  to  his  people,  constituting  the 
church.  This  process  is  not  mechanical  but  organic.  It  takes 
place  in  the  way  of  history,  growth,  regular  living,  development.' 
By  uniting  our  nature  with  the  divine,  he  became  the  root  of  a 
new  life  I'or  the  race.  "  The  word  became  flesh  ;  not  a  single 
man  only,  as  one  among  many ;  but  flesh,  or  humanity  in  its 
universal  conception.  How  else  could  he  be  the  principle  of  a 
general  life,  the  origin  of  a  new  order  of  existence  for  the  human 
world  as  suth  ?"  P.  210.  '•  The  supernatural  as  thus  made  per- 
manent and  historical  in  the  church,  must,  in  the  natm-e  of  the 
case,  correspond  with  the  form  of  the  supernatural,  as  it  appeared 
in  Christ  himself.  For  it  is  all  one  and  the  same  life  or  consti- 
tution. The  church  must  have  a  true  theanthropic  character 
throughout.  The  union  of  the  divine  and  human  in  her  consti- 
tution, must  be  inward  and  real,  a  continuous  revelation  of  God 
in  the  flesh,  exalting  this  last  continuously  into  the  sphere  of  the 
Spirit."  P.  247.  The  incarnation  is,  therefore,  still  present  and  pro- 
gressive, in  the  way  of  actual,  human  development,  in  the  church. 

'  Schleiermacher  says,  in  bis  second  Sendschreibeu  to  Llicke  "Wo  Uebernatiir- 
liches  bei  mir  vorkomnat,  da  ist  eb  immer  ein  Erates ;  es  -wird  aber  hernach  ein  Nat- 
iirliches  als  Zweites  So  ist  die  Schopfung  iibernatiirlich ;  aber  sie  wird  hernach 
Naturzusammcnhang ;  so  ist  Christus  iibernatLirlich  seinem  Anfang  nacli,  aber  er 
wird  natlirlich  als  rein  monschhche  Person,  und  ebenso  ist  es  mit  dem  heiligen  Geiste 
und  der  chrisllichcn  Kirche.  Somewliat  to  the  same  eflect,  Dr.  Nevin  somewhere 
says,  The  supernatural  has  become  natural. 


ON    THE    LOKD's    SUPPER.  377 

There  are  two  remarks,  however,  to  be  here  made.  First,  ac- 
cording to  this  system,  the  mystical  union  implies  a  participation 
of  the  entire  humanity  of  Christ,  for  if  we  are  joined  in  real  life- 
unity  with  the  Logos,  we  should  be  exalted  to  the  level  of  the 
Son  of  God.  Still  it  is  not  with  his  soul  alone,  or  his  body  alone, 
but  with  his  whole  person,  for  the  life  of  Christ  is  one.  Second, 
This  union  of  Christ  and  his  people,  implies  no  ubiquity  of  his 
body,  and  no  fusion  of  his  proper  personality  with  theirs.  We 
must  distinguish  between  the  simple  man  and  the  univeral  man 
here  joined  in  the  same  person,  much  as  in  the  case  of  Adam. 
He  was  at  once  an  individual  and  the  whole  race.  So  we  distin- 
guish between  Christ's  universal  humanity  in  the  church,  and 
his  humanity  as  a  particular  man,  whom  the  heavens  must  re- 
ceive unto  the  restitution  of  all  things.  P.  173. 

The  incarnation  being  thus  progressive,  the  church  is  in  very 
deed,  the  depository  and'  continuation  of  the  Saviour's  thean- 
thropic  life  itself,  in  which  powers  and  resources  are  continually 
at  hand,  involving  a  real  intercommunion  and  interpenetration 
of  the  human  and  divine.  P.  248.  It  follows  also  from  this  view  of 
the  case,  that  the  sacraments  of  the  church,  have  a  real  objective 
force.  "  The  force  of  the  sacrament  is  in  the  sacrament  itself. 
Our  faith  is  needed  only  to  make  room  for  it  in  our  souls."  P. 
183.  "  The  things  signified  are  bound  to  the  signs  by  the  force 
of  a  divine  appointment ;  so  that  the  grace  goes  inseparably 
along  with  the  signs,  and  is  truly  present  for  all  who  are  pre- 
pared to  make  it  their  own."  P.  62. 

In  the  fourth  place,  as  to  the  mode  of  union  with  Christ,  it  is 
by  regeneration.  Bat  this  regeneration  is  by  the  church.  If  the 
church  is  the  depository  of  the  theanthropic  life  of  Christ,  if  the 
progress  of  the  church  takes  place  in  the  way  of  history,  growth, 
living  development,  it  would  seem  as  unreasonable  that  a  man 
should  be  united  to  Christ  and  made  partaker  of  his  nature, 
otherwise  than  by  union  with  this  external,  historial  church,  as 
that  he  should  possess  the  nature  of  Adam  by  immediate  crea- 
tion, instead  of  regular  descent.  It  is  by  the  ministration  of  this 
living  church,  in  which  the  incarnation  of  God  is  progressive,  and 
by  her  grace-bearing  sacraments,  that  the  church  life,  which  is 
the  same  as  that  of  Christ,  is  continually  carried  over  to  new  in- 
dividuals. The  life  of  the  single  Christian  can  be  real  only  as 
born  and  sustained  to  the  end  by  the  life  of  the  church,  which  is 


378  DOCTRINE    OF     THE     REFORMED    CHURCH 

the  living  and  life-giving  body  of  Christ.  The  effect  of  the  sacra- 
ments, therefore,  is  thus  to  convey  and  sustain  the  life  of  Christ, 
his  whole  divine-human  life.  We  partake  not  of  his  divinity 
only,  but  also  of  his  true  and  proper  humanity  ;  not  of  his 
humanity  in  a  separate  form,  nor  of  his  flesh  and  blood  alone, 
but  of  his  whole  life,  as  a  single  undivided  form  of  existence. 
In  the  Lord's  Supper  consequently  Christ  is  present  in  a  peculiar 
an'd  mysterious  way  ;  present  as  to  his  body,  soul,  and  divinity, 
not  locally  as  included  under  the  elements,  but  really  ;  the  sign 
and  thing  signified,  and  inward  and  outward,  the  visible  and 
invisible,  constitute  one  inseparable  presence.  Unbelievers,  in- 
deed, receive  only  the  outward  sign,  because  they  lack  the  organ 
of  recejDtion  for  the  inward  grace.  Still  the  latter  is  there,  and 
the  believer  receives  both,  the  outward  sign  and  the  one  un- 
divided, theanthropic  life  of  Christ,  his  body,  soul,  and  divinity. 
The  Eucharist  has,  therefore,  "  a  peculiar  and  altogether  extra- 
ordinary power,"  It  IS,  as  Maurice  is  quoted  as  asserting,  the 
bond  of  a  universal  life  and  the  means  whereby  men  become 
pertakers  of  it. 

Such,  as  we  understand  it,  is  the  theory  unfolded  in  this  book. 
It  is  in  all  its  essential  features  Schleiermacher's  theory.  We 
almost  venture  to  hope  that  Dr.  Nevin  will  consider  it  a  fair  ex- 
hibition, not  so  satisfactory,  of  course,  as  he  himself  could  make, 
but  as  good  as  could  well  be  expected  from  the  uninitiated.  It 
is  at  least  honestly  done,  and  io  the  best  of  our  ability. 

It  is  not  the  truth  of  this  system  that  we  propose  to  examine, 
but  simply  its  relation  to  the  theology  of  the  Eeformed  church. 
Dr.  Nevin  is  loud,  frequent,  often,  apparently  at  least,  con- 
temptuous, in  his  reproaches  of  his  brethren  for  their  apostacy 
from  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation.  We  propose  very  briefly 
to  assign  our  reasons  for  regarding  his  system,  as  unfolded  in 
this  book,  as  an  entire  rejection  not  only  of  the  peculiar  doc- 
trines of  the  Reformed  church  on  the  points  concerned,  but  of 
some  of  the  leading  principles  of  Protestant,  and  even  Catholic, 
theology. 

First,  in  reference  to  the  person  of  Christ.  Dr.  Nevin  denies 
any  dualism  in  the  constitution  of  man.  Soul  and  body,  in  their 
ground,  are  but  one  life.  So  in  the  case  of  Christ,  in  virtue  of 
the  hypostatical  union,  his  life  is  one.  The  divine  and  human 
are  so  united  in  him  as  to  constitute  one  indivisible  life.     "  It  is 


ON    THE    lord's    SUPPER.  379 

in  all  respects  a  true  human  life."  P.  167.  "  His  divine  nature 
is  at  the  same  time  human,  in  the  fullest  sense."  P.  174. 

That  this  is  a  departure  not  only  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Re- 
formed church,  but  of  the  church  universal,  seems  to  us  very 
plain.  In  one  view  it  is  the  Eutychian  doctrine,  and  in  another 
something  worse.  Eutyches  and  afterwards  the  Mono  thelites 
taught,  that  after  the  hypostatical  union,  there  was  in  Christ  but 
one  nature  and  operation.  Substitute  the  word  life,  for  its  equi- 
valent, nature,  and  we  have  the  precise  statement  of  Dr.  Nevin's. 
He  warns  us  against  the  error  of  Nestorius,  just  as  the  Eutychi- 
ans  called  all  who  held  to  the  existence  of  two  natures  in  Christ, 
Nestorians.  Eutyches  admitted  that  this  one  nature  or  life  in  our 
Lord,  was  theanthropic.  He  was  constituted  of  two  natures,  but 
after  their  union,  had  but  one.  'OjuoAoyw,  he  says,  tK  6vo  (pvaeiov 
yeyevvrjadat  rov  tcvgtov  rjf^iojv  npo  rrjq  tvcooEug-  fxera  6e  t7]v  h'CJGiv,  fiiav 
(jivaiv  bfxoXoyo).  And,  therefore,  there  was  in  Christ,  as  the  Mono- 
thelites  say,  but  [iia  deavSpiKr]  evepyeia.  What  is  the  difference  be- 
tween one  theanthropic  life,  and  one  theanthropic  operation  ? 
We  are  confirmed  in  the  correctness  of  this  view  of  the  matter, 
from  the  fact,  that  Schleiermacher,  the  father  of  this  system, 
strenuously  objects  to  the  use  of  the  word  nature  in  this  whole 
connection  especially  in  its  application  to  the  divinity,  and  op- 
poses also  the  adoption  of  the  terms  which  the  council  of  Chalce- 
don  employed  in  the  condemnation  of  Eutychianism.'  This, 
however,  is  a  small  matter.  Dr.  Nevin  has  a  right  to  speak  for 
himself  It  is  his  own  language,  which,  as  it  seems  to  us,  dis- 
tinctly conveys  the  Eutychian  doctrine,  that  after  the  hypostati- 
cal union  there  was  but  one  ^vcri^,  or,  as  he  expresses  it,  one  life, 
in  Christ.  He  attributes  to  Calvin  a  wrong  psychology  in  refer- 
ence to  Christ's  person.  What  is  that  but  to  attribute  to  him 
wrong  views  of  that  person  ?  And  what  is  that  but  saying  his 
own  views  differ  from  those  of  Calvin  on  the  person  of  Christ  ? 
No  one,  however,  has  ever  pretended  that  Calvin  had  any  peculiar 
views  on  that  subject.  He  says  himself  that  he  held  all  the  de- 
cisions, as  to  such  points,  of  the  first  six  oecumenical  councils.  In 
differing  from  Calvin,  on  this  point,  therefore.  Dr.  Nevin  differs 
from  the  whole  church. 

But  in  the  other  view  of  this  matter.  What  was  this  one  life 
(or  nature)  of  Christ  ?     Dr.  Nevin  says  :  "It  was  in  all  respects 

'  Schleiermachor's  Glaubenslehre,  §  97. 


380  DOCTBINE    OF    THE    REFORMED     CHURCH 

a  true  human  life."  P.  167.  "  Christ  is  the  archetypal  man,  in 
whom  the  true  idea  of  humanity  is  brought  to  view."  He  "  is 
the  true  ideal  man."  Our  nature  is  complete  only  in  him.  P. 
201.  But  is  a  perfect,  or  ideal  man,  any  thing  more  than  a  mere 
man  after  all  ?  If  all  that  was  in  Christ  pertains  to  the  perfec- 
tion of  our  nature,  he  was,  at  best,  but  a  perfect  man.  The  only 
way  to  escape  Socinianisn,  on  this  theory,  is  by  deifying  man, 
identifying  the  divine  and  human,  and  making  all  the  glory,  wis- 
dom, and  power,  which  belong  to  Christ,  the  proper  attributes  of 
humanity.  Christ  is  a  perfect  man.  But  what  is  a  perfect  man  ? 
We  may  give  a  pantheistic,  or  a  Socinian  answer  to  that  question, 
and  not  really  help  the  matter — for  the  real  and  infinite  hiatus 
between  us  and  Christ,  is  in  either  case  closed.  Thus  it  is  that 
mysticism  falls  back  on  rationalism.  They  are  but  difierent 
phases  of  the  same  spirit.  In  Germany,  it  has  long  been  a  mat- 
ter of  dispute,  to  which  class  Schleiermacher  belongs.  He  was 
accustomed  to  smile  at  the  controversy  as  a  mere  logomachy. 
Steudel  objects  to  Schleiermacher's  christology,  that  according  to 
him  "  Christ  is  a  finished  man."  Albert  Knapp  says  :  "  He 
deifies  the  human  and  renders  human  the  divine."'  We,  there- 
fore, do  not  stand  alone  in  thinking  that  to  represent  Christ's  life 
as  in  all  respects  human,  to  say  he  was  the  ideal  man,  that  human 
nature  found  its  completion  in  him,  admits  naturally  only  of  a 
pantheistic  or  a  Socinian  interpretation.  We  of  course  do  not 
attribute  to  Dr.  Nevin  either  of  these  forms  of  doctrine.  We  do 
not  believe  that  he  adopts  either,  but  we  object  both  to  his 
language  and  doctrine  that  one  or  the  other  of  those  heresies  is 
their  legitimate  consequence. 

In  the  second  place,  we  think  the  system  under  consideration 
is  justly  chargeable  with  a  departure  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Re- 
formed church,  and  the  church  universal,  as  to  the  nature  of  our 
union  with  Christ.  According  to  the  Reformed  church  that  union 
is  not  merely  moral,  nor  is  it  merely  legal  or  federal,  nor  does  it 
arise  simply  from  Christ  having  assumed  our  nature,  it  is  at  the 
same  time  real  and  vital.  But  the  bond  of  that  union,  however 
intimate  or  extensive,  is  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
third  person  of  the  Godhead,  in  Christ  and  in  his  people.  We 
receive  Christ  himself,  when  we  receive  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is 
the  Spirit  of  Christ ;  we  receive  the  hfe  of  Christ  when  we  re- 
'F.  W.  Gess:  Uebersicht  iiber  Schleier.    System,  p.  225. 


ON    THE    lord's    SUPPER.  381 

ceive  his  Spirit,  who  is  the  Spirit  of  life.  Such  we  believe  to  be 
the  true  doctrine  of  the  Reforinecl  church  on  this  subject.  But  if 
to  this  be  added,  as  some  of  the  Reformed  taught,  there  was  a 
mysterious  power  emanating  from  the  glorified  body  of  Christ,  in 
heaven,  it  falls  very  far  short,  or  rather  is  something  entirely  differ- 
ent from  the  doctrine  of  this  book.  Dr.  Nevin's  theory  of  the  mysti- 
cal union  is  of  course  determined  by  his  view  of  the  constitution 
of  Christ's  person.  If  divinity  and  humanity  are  united  in  him 
as  one  life  ;  if  that  life  is  in  all  respects  human,  then  it  is  this  di- 
vine human  life,  humanity  raised  to  the  power  of  deity,  that  is 
communicated  to  his  people.  It  is  communicated  too,  in  the 
form  of  a  new  organic  principle,  working  in  the  way  of  history 
and  growth,  "  The  supernatural  has  become  natural."  P.  246. 
A  new  divine  element  has  been  introduced  into  our  nature  by  the 
incarnation.  "  Humanity  itself  has  been  quickened  into  fuU 
correspondence  with  the  vivifi.c  principle  it  has  been  made  to  en- 
shrine." Believers,  therefore,  receive,  or  take  part  in  the  entire 
humanity  of  Christ.  From  Adam  they  receive  humanity  as  he 
had  it,  after  the  fall  ;  from  Christ,  the  theauthropic  life,  humanity 
with  deity  enshrined  in  it,  or  rather  made  one  with  it,  one  undi- 
vided life. 

That  this  is  not  the  old  view  of  the  mystical  union  between 
Christ  and  his  people,  can  hardly  be  a  matter  of  dispute.  Dr. 
Nevin  says  Calvin  was  wrong  not  only  in  the  psychology  of  Christ, 
but  of  his  people.  Ullman,  in  the  essay  prefixed  to  this  volume, 
tells  us  Schleiermacher  introduced  an  epoch  by  teaching  this  doc- 
trine. This  is  declared  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  the 
Future.  It  is  denied  to  be  that  of  the  Church  of  the  Past.  There 
is  one  consideration,  if  there  were  no  other,  which  determines  this 
question  beyond  appeal.  It  follows  of  necessity  from  Dr.  Nevin's 
doctrine  that  the  relation  of  believers  to  Grod  and  Christ,  is  essen- 
tially different,  since  the  incarnation,  from  that  of  believers  before 
that  event.  The  union  between  the  divine  and  human  began 
with  Christ,  and  from  him  this  theanthropic  life  passes  over  to 
the  church.  There  neither  was  nor  could  be  any  such  thing  be- 
fore. This  he  admits.  He,  therefore,  teaches  that  the  saints  of 
old  were,  as  to  the  mystical  union,  in  a  very  different  condition 
from  that  of  the  saints  now.  Hear  what  he  says  on  that  subject. 
In  arguing  against  the  doctrine  that  the  indwelling  of  Christ  is 
by  the  Spirit,  he  says  :  "  Let  the  church  know  that  she   is  no 


382         DOCTKINE    OF    THE    REFORMED    CHURCH 

nearer  God  now  in  fact,  in  the  way  of  actual  life,  than  she  was 
under  the  Old  Testament ;  that  the  indwelling  of  Christ  in  be- 
lievers, is  only  parallel  with  the  di\*ine  presence  enjoyed  by  the 
Jewish  saints,  who  all  died  in  the  faith,  '  not  having  received  the 
promises  ;'  that  the  mystical  union  in  the  case  of  Paul  and  John 
was  nothing  more  intimate,  and  vital,  and  real,  than  the  relation 
sustained  to  God  by  Abraham,  or  Daniel,  or  Isaiah."  P.  195. 
"  In  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament,  God  descends  towards 
man,  and  holds  out  to  his  view  in  this  way  the  promise  of  a  real 
union  of  the  divine  nature  with  the  human,  as  the  end  of  the 
gracious  economy  thus  introduced.  To  such  a  real  union  it  is 
true,  the  dispensation  itself  never  came  *  *  '•'"  The  wall  of 
partition  that  separated  the  divine  from  the  human,  was  never 
fully  broken  down."  P.  203.  It  was,  he  says,  "  a  revelation  of 
God  to  man,  and  not  a  revelation  of  God  in  man."  Again, 
"  That  which  forms  the  full  reality  of  rehgion,  the  union  of  the 
divine  nature  with  the  human,  the  revelation  of  God  in  man,  and 
not  simply  to  him,  was  wanting  in  the  Old  Testament  altogether." 
Let  us  now  hear  what  Calvin,  who  is  quoted  by  Dr.  Nevin  as  the 
great  representative  of  the  Reformed  church,  says  on  the  subject. 
He  devotes  the  whole  of  chapters  10  and  11  of  the  Second  Book 
of  his  Institutes,  to  the  refutation  of  the  doctrine  that  the  Old 
Testament  economy  in  its  promises,  blessings,  and  effects,  differed 
essentially  from  that  of  the  New.  The  difference  he  declares  to  be 
merely  circumstantial,  relating  to  the  mode,  the  clearness,  and 
extent  of  its  instructions,  and  the  number  embraced  under  its  in- 
fluence. He  tells  us  he  was  led  to  the  discussion  of  this  subject 
by  what  that  "  prodigiosus  nebulo  Servetus,  et  furiosi  uonnulli 
ex  Anabaptistarum  secta,"  (rather  bad  company),  taught  on  this 
point ;  who  thought  of  the  Jews  no  better,  quam  de  aliquo  por- 
corum  grege.  In  opposition  to  them,  and  all  like  them,  Calvin 
undertakes  to  prove,  that  the  old  covenant  "  differed  in  substance 
and  reality  nothing  from  ours,  but  was  entirely  one  and  the  same  ; 
the  administration  alone  being  different."  10  :  2.  "  What  more 
absurd,"  he  asks  §  10,  "  than  that  Abraham  should  be  the  father 
of  all  the  faithful,  and  yet  not  have  a  corner  among  them  ?  But 
he  can  be  cast  down  neither  from  the  number,  nor  from  his  high 
rank  among  believers,  without  destroying  the  whole  church."  He 
reminds  Christians  that  Christ  has  promised  thom  no  higher 
heaven  than  to  sit  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob.     Dr. 


ON     THE     lord's     SUPPER.  383 

Nevin  ought  surely  to  stop  quoting  Calvin  as  in  any  way  abet- 
ting the  monstrous  doctrine,  that  under  the  old  dispensation, 
God  was  only  revealed  to  his  people,  while  under  the  new,  the 
divine  nature  is  united  in  them  with  the  human  nature,  as  in 
Christ  ("  the  same  life  or  constitution,")  in  the  way  of  progress- 
ive incarnation. 

What,  however,  still  more  clearly  shows  the  radical  difference 
between  Dr.  Nevin's  theory,  and  that  of  the  Reformed  church, 
as  to  this  point,  is  what  he  says  in  reference  to  the  sacraments 
of  the  two  dispensations.  Eomanists  teach  that  the  sacraments 
of  the  Old  Testament  merely  prefigure  grace,  those  of  the  New 
actually  confer  it.  This  doctrine  Calvin,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  strenuously  denies,  and  calls  its  advocates  miserable  so- 
phists. He  asserts  that  "  whatever  is  exhibited  in  our  sacra- 
ments, the  Jews  formerly  received  in  theirs,  to  wit,  Christ  and 
his  benefits ;"  that  baptism  has  no  higher  efficacy  than  circum- 
cision. He  quotes  the  authority  of  Augustin,  for  saying,  Sa- 
cramenta  Judeeorum  in  signis  fuisse  diversa  ;  in  re  quse  signifi- 
catur,  paria ;  diversa  specie  visibili,  paria  virtute  spiritual!.' 
Dr.  Nevin,  however,  is  constrained  by  his  view  of  the  nature  of 
the  union  between  Christ  and  his  people,  since  the  incarnation, 
to  make  the  greatest  possible  difference  between  the  sacraments 
of  the  two  dispensations.  He  even  goes  further  than  the  Ro- 
manists, teaching  that  the  passover,  e.  g.  was  properly  no  sacra- 
ment at  all.  "  Not  a  sacrament  at  all,  indeed,"  is  his  language, 
"  in  the  full  New  Testament  sense,  but  a  sacrament  simply  in 
prefiguration  and  type."  P.  251.  In  the  same  connexion  he 
says  :  "  The  sacraments  of  the  Old  Testament  are  no  proper 
measure  by  which  to  graduate  directly  the  force  that  belongs  to 
the  sacraments  of  the  New.  *  *  ■'•'•'  To  make  baptism  no 
more  than  circumcision,  or  the  Lord's  Supper  no  more  than  the 
passover,  is  to  wrong  the  new  dispensation  as  really"  as  by  mak- 
ing Christ  nothing  more  than  a  Levitical  priest.  Systems  which 
lead  to  such  opposite  conclusions  must  be  radically  different. 
The  lowest  Puritan,  ultra  Protestant,  or  sectary  in  the  land, 
who  truly  believes  in  Christ,  is  nearer  Calvin  than  Dr.  Nevin  ; 
and  has  more  of  the  true  spirit  and  theology  of  the  Reformed 
church,  than  is  to  be  found  in  this  book. 

In  the  third  place,  Dr.  Nevin's  theory,  differing  so  seriously 

'  Institutes,  v.  14 :  23—26. 


384  DOCTRINE    OF    THEREFORMED     CHURCH 

from  that  of  the  Reformed  church,  as  to  the  person  of  Christ 
and  his  union  with  his  people,  may  be  expected  to  differ  from  it 
as  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  work,  and  method  of  salvation.  Ac- 
cording to  him,  human  nature,  the  generic  life  of  humanity, 
being  corrupted  by  the  fall,  was  healed  by  being  taken  into  a 
liie-union  with  the  Logos.  This  union  so  elevated  it,  raised  it 
to  such  a  higher  character,  and  filled  it  with  such  new  meaning 
and  power,  that  it  was  more  than  restored  to  its  original  state. 
This  however  could  not  be  done  without  a  struggle.  Being  the 
bearer  of  a  fallen  humanity,  there  was  a  necessity  for  suffering 
in  order  that  life  should  triumph  over  the  law  of  sin  and  death. 
This  was  the  atonement.     See  p.  166. 

The  first  remark  that  suggests  itself  here,  is  the  query,  what 
is  meant  by  "  fallen  humanity  ?"  Can  it  mean  any  thing  else 
than  a  corrupted  nature  :  i.  e.,  our  nature  in  the  state  to  which 
it  was  reduced  by  the  fall  ?  How  else  could  its  assumption  in- 
volve the  necessity  of  suffering  ?  It  is  hoAvever  hard  to  see  how 
the  assumption  of  a  corrupt  nature,  is  consistent  with  the  perfect 
sinlessness  of  the  Redeemer.  Dr.  Nevin,  as  far  as  we  see,  does 
not  touch  this  point.  With  Schleiermacher,  according  to  whom 
absolute  freedom  from  sin  was  the  distinguishing  prerogative 
of  the  Saviour,  this  was  secured,  though  clothed  with  our  nature, 
by  all  the  acts  or  determinations  of  that  nature,  being  governed 
in  his  case,  by  "  the  Grod-consciousness"  in  him,  or  the  divine 
principle.  This  is  far  from  being  satisfactory  ;  but  we  pass  that 
point.  What  however  are  we  to  say  to  this  view  of  the  atone- 
ment ?  It  was  vicarious  suffering  indeed,  for  the  Logos  as- 
sumed, and  by  the  painful  process  of  his  life  and  death,  healed 
our  nature,  not  for  himself  but  for  our  sakes.  But  there  is  here 
no  atonement,  that  is,  no  satisfaction  ;  no  propitiation  of  God  : 
no  reference  to  divine  justice.  All  this  is  necessarily  excluded. 
All  these  ideas  are  passed  over  in  silence  by  Dr.  Nevin  ;  by 
Schleiermacher  they  are  openly  rejected.  The  atonement  is  the 
painfully  accomplished  triumph  of  the  new  divine  principle  intro- 
duced into  our  nature,  over  the  law  of  sin  introduced  into  it  by 
Adam.     Is  this  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  church  ? 

Again,  the  whole  method  of  salvation  is  necessarily  changed 
by  this  system.  We  become  partakers  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  by 
partaking  of  his  nature  ;  we  become  partakers  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  by  partaking  of  his  nature.     There  can  be  no  im- 


ON    THE    lord's    SUPPER.  385 

putation  of  either  sin  or  righteousness  to  us,  except  they  belong 
to  us,  or  are  inherently  our  own.  "  Our  participation  in  the  ac- 
tual unrighteousness  of  his  (Adam's)  life,  forms  the  ground  of  our 
participation  in  his  guilt  and  liability  to  punishment.  And  in 
no  other  way,  we  affirm,  can  the  idea  of  imputation  be  satis- 
factorily sustained  in  the  case  of  the  second  Adam."  "  Kight- 
eousness,  like  guilt,  is  an  attribute  which  supposes  a  subject  in 
which  it  inheres,  and  from  which  it  cannot  be  abstracted  with 
out  ceasing  to  exist  altogether.  In  the  case  before  us,  that  sub- 
ject is  the  mediatorial  nature  or  life  of  the  Saviour  himself. 
Whatever  there  may  be  of  merit,  virtue,  efficacy,  or  moral  value 
in  any  way,  in  the  mediatorial  work  of  Christ,  it  is  all  lodged 
in  the  life,  by  the  power  of  which  alone  this  work  has  been 
accomplished,  and  in  the  presence  of  which  only  it  can  have 
either  reality  or  stability."  P.  191.  This  is  very  plain,  we  re- 
ceive the  theanthropic  nature  or  life  of  Christ  ;  that  nature  is 
of  a  high  character,  righteous,  holy,  conformed  to  God ;  in  re- 
ceiving that  life  we  receive  its  merit,  its  virtues  and  efficacy. 
On  p.  189,  he  is  still  more  explicit  :  "  How  can  that  be  imputed 
or  reckoned  to  any  man  on  the  part  of  God,  which  does  not  be- 
long to  him  in  reality  ?"  "  This  objection,"  he  says,  "is  insur- 
mountable, according  to  the  form  in  which  the  doctrine  of  impu- 
tation is  too  generally  held."  "  The  judgment  of  God  must  ever 
be  according  to  truth.  He  cannot  reckon  to  any  one  an  attribute 
or  quality  which  does  not  belong  to  him  in  fact.  He  cannot  de- 
clare him  to  be  in  a  relation  or  state,  which  is  not  actually  his 
own,  but  the  position  merely  of  another.  A  simple  external 
imputation  here,  the  pleasure  or  purpose  of  God  to  place  to  the 
account  of  one  what  has  been  done  by  another,  will  not  answer." 
"  The  Bible  knows  nothing  of  a  simple  outward  imputation,  by 
which  something  is  reckoned  to  a  man  that  does  not  belong  to 
him  in  fact."  P.  190.  "  The  ground  of  our  justification  is  a 
righteousness  that  was  foreign  to  us  before,  but  is  now  made  to 
lodge  itself  in  the  inmost  constitution  of  our  being."  P.  180. 
God's  act  in  justification  "  is  necessarily  more  than  a  mere  de- 
claration or  form  of  thought.  It  makes  us  to  be  in  fact,  what  it 
declares  us  to  be,  in  Christ."  lb.  Here  we  reach  the  vefy  life- 
spot  of  the  Reformation.  Is  justification  a  declaring  just,  or  a 
making  just,  inherently  ?  This  was  the  real  battle-ground  on 
which  the  blood  of  so  many  martyrs  was  spilt.     Are  we  justified 


386  DOCTEINE    OF    THE    REFORMED     CHURCH 

for  something  done  for  us,  or  something  wrought  in  us,  actually 
our  own  ?  It  is  a  mere  playing  with  words,  to  make  a  distinc- 
tion, as  Mr.  Newman  did,  between  what  it  is  that  thus  makes  us 
inherently  righteous.  Whether  it  is  infused  grace,  a  new  heart, 
the  indwelling  Spirit,  the  humanity  of  Christ,  his  life,  his  the- 
anthropic  nature  ;  it  is  all  one.  It  is  subjective  justification 
after  all,  and  nothing  more.  We  consider  Dr.  Nevin's  theory 
as  impugning  here,  the  vital  doctrine  of  Protestantism.  His 
doctrine  is  not,  of  course,  the  Romish,  teres  atque  rotundus  ;  he 
may  distinguish  here,  and  discriminate  there.  But  as  to  the 
main  point,  it  is  a  denial  of  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion. He  knows  as  well  as  any  man  that  all  the  churches  ol 
the  fifteenth  century  held  the  imputation  not  only  of  what  was 
our  own,  but  of  what  though  not  ours  inherently,  was  on  some 
adequate  ground  set  to  our  account  ;  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is 
imputed  to  us,  not  because  of  our  having  his  corrupted  nature, 
but  because  of  the  imputation  of  his  sin,  we  are  involved  in  his 
corruption.  He  knows  that  when  the  doctrine  of  mediate  im- 
putation, as  he  teaches  it,  was  introduced  by  Placseus,  it  was 
universally  rejected.  He  knows  moreover,  that,  with  regard  to 
justification,  the  main  question  was,  whether  it  was  a  declaratory 
or  an  effective  act,  whether  it  was  a  declaring  just  on  the  ground 
of  a  righteousness  not  in  us,  or  a  making  just  by  communicating 
righteousness  to  us.  Romanists  were  as  ready  as  Protestants  to 
admit  that  the  act  by  which  men  are  rendered  just  actually,  was 
a  gracious  act,  and  for  Christ's  sake,  but  they  denied  that  justifi- 
cation is  a  forensic  or  declaratory  act  founded  on  the  imputation 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  which  is  neither  in  us,  nor  by  that 
imputation  communicated  as  a  quality  to  our  souls.  It  was  what 
Romanists  thus  denied,  Protestants  asserted,  and  made  a  matter 
of  so  much  importance.  And  it  is  in  fact  the  real  keystone  of 
the  arch  which  sustains  our  peace  and  hope  towards  God  ;  for  if 
we  are  no  further  righteous  than  we  are  actually  and  inherently 
80,  what  have  we  to  expect  in  the  presence  of  a  righteous  God, 
but  indignation  and  wrath  ? 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  obvious  departure  of  Dr.  Nevin's  sys- 
tem from  that  of  the  Reformed  church,  is  seen  in  what  he  teach- 
es concerning  the  church  and  the  sacraments.  The  evidence 
here  is  not  easy  to  present.  As  he  very  correctly  remarks  with 
regard  to  certain  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  they  rest  far  less  on  dis- 


ON     THE    lord's     SUPPER.  387 

tinct  passages  which  admit  of  quotation,  than  on  the  spirit,  tenor, 
implications,  and  assumptions  which  pervade  the  sacred  volume. 
It  is  so  with  this  book.  Its  whole  spirit  is  churchy.  It  makes 
religion  to  be  a  church  life,  its  manifestatians  a  liturgical  service, 
its  support  sacramental  grace.  It  is  the  form,  the  spirit,  the 
predominance  of  these  things,  which  give  his  book  a  character 
as  different  as  can  be  from  the  healthful,  evangelical  free  spirit 
of  Luther  or  Calvin.  The  main  question  whether  we  come  to 
Christ,  and  then  to  the  church  ;  whether  we  by  a  personal  act  of 
faith  receive  him,  and  by  union  with  him  become  a  member  of 
his  mystical  body  ;  or  whether  all  our  access  to  Christ  is  through 
a  mediating  church.  Dr.  Nevin  decides  against  the  evangelical 
system. 

It  foUows  of  necessity,  as  he  himself  says,  from  his  doctrine  of 
a  progressive  incarnation,  "that  the  church  is  the  depository  and 
continuation  of  the  Saviour's  theanthropic  life  itself,  and  as  such, 
a  truly  supernatural  constitution,  in  which  powers  and  resources 
are  constantly  at  hand,  involving  a  real  intercommunion  and  in- 
terpretation of  the  human  and  divine."  P.  248.  The  church  with 
him,  being  "  historical  must  be  visible."  "  An  outward  church 
is  the  necessary  form  of  the  new  creation  in  Christ  Jesus,  in  its 
very  nature."  P.  5.  With  Protestants  the  true  church  is  "  the 
communion  of  saints,"  the  "  congregatio  sanctorum,"  "  the  com- 
pany of  faithful  men  ;"  not  the  company  or  organization  of  pro- 
fessing men.  It  would  be  difficult  to  frame  a  proposition  more 
subversive  of  the  very  foundations  of  all  Protestantism,  than  the 
assertion  that  the  description  above  given,  or  any  thing  like  it, 
belongs  to  the  church  visible  as  such.  It  is  the  fundamental 
error  of  Komanism,  the  source  of  her  power  and  of  her  corrup- 
tion to  ascribe  to  the  outward  church,  the  attributes  and  pre- 
rogatives of  the  mystical  body  of  Christ. 

We  must,  however,  pass  to  Dr.  Kevin's  doctrine  of  the  sacra- 
ments, and  specify  at  least  some  of  the  points  in  which  he  departs 
from  the  doctrine  of  the  Keformed  church.  And  in  the  first  place, 
he  ascribes  to  them  a  specific  and  "altogether  extraordinary 
power."  P.  118.  There  is  a  presence  and  of  course  a  receiving 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  "  to  be 
had  nowhere  else."  P.  75.  This  idea  is  presented  in  various 
forms.  It  is,  however,  in  direct  contravention  of  the  Confessions 
of  the  Keformed  churches,  as  we  have  already  seen.     They  make 


388  DOCTRINE    OF    THE    REFORMED    CHURCH 

a  circumstantial  distinction  between  spiritual  and  sacramental 
manducation,  but  as  to  any  specific  difference,  any  difference  as 
to  what  is  there  received  from  what  is  received  elsewhere,  they 
expressly  deny  it.  In  the  Helv.  Conf.  already  quoted,  it  is  said, 
that  the  eating  and  drinking  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  takes 
place,  even  elsewhere  than  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  whenever  and 
wherever  a  man  believes  in  Christ.  Calvin,  in  the  Consensus 
Tigurinus,  Art.  xix.,  says  :  What  is  figured  in  the  sacraments  is 
granted  to  behevers  extra  eorum  usum.  This  he  applies  and 
proves,  first  in  reference  to  baptism,  and  then  in  reference  to  the 
Lord's  Supper.  In  the  explanation  of  that  Consensus  he  vin- 
dicates this  doctrine  against  the  objections  of  the  Lutherans, 
''  Quod  deinde  prosequimur,"  he  begins,  "  fidelibus  spiritualium 
bonorum  effectum  qu£e  figurant  sacramenta,  extra  eorum  usum 
constare,  quando  et  quotidie  verum  esse  experimur  et  probatur 
scripturge  testimoniis,  mirum  est  si  cui  displiceat,"  The  same 
thing  is  expressly  taught  in  his  Institutes,  iv.,  14.  14. 

The  second  point  on  which  Dr.  Nevin  differs  from  the  Re- 
formed church,  as  to  the  sacraments,  relates  to  their  efficacy.  All 
agree  that  they  have  an  objective  force  ;  that  they  no  more  owe 
their  power  to  the  faith  of  the  recipient  than  the  word  of  God 
does.  But  the  question  is.  What  is  the  source  to  which  the  in- 
fluence of  the  sacraments  as  means  of  grace,  is  to  be  referred  ? 
We  have  already  stated  that  Romanists,  say  it  is  to  be  referred 
to  the  sacraments  themselves  as  containing  the  grace  they  con- 
vey ;  Lutherans,  to  the  supernatural  power  of  the  word,  insepar- 
ably joined  with  the  signs  ;  the  Reformed,  to  the  attending 
power  of  the  Spirit  which  is  in  no  manner  inseparable  from  the 
signs  or  the  service.  Dr.  Nevin's  doctrine  seems  to  lie  somewhere 
between  the  Roguish  and  the  Lutheran  view.  He  agrees  with 
the  Romanists  in  referring  the  efficacy  to  the  service  itself,  and 
with  the  Lutherans  in  making  faith  necessary  in  order  to  the 
sacrament  taking  effect.  Some  of  his  expressions  on  the  subject 
are  the  following :  Faith  "  is  the  condition  of  its  (the  sacra- 
ment's) efficacy  for  the  communicant,  but  not  the  principle  of 
the  power  itself.  This  belongs  to  the  institution  in  its  own  na- 
ture. The  signs  are  bound  to  what  they  represent,  not  subjec- 
tively simply  in  the  thought  of  the  worshipper,  but  objectively, 
by  the  force  of  a  divine  appointment.  *  ■••'•■  *  The  grace  goes 
inseparably  along  with  the  sign,  and  is  truly  present  for  all  who 


ON    THE    lord's    SUPPER,  389 

are  prepared  to  make  it  their  own."  P.  61.  "  The  invisible  grace 
enters  as  a  necessary  constituent  element  into  the  idea  of  the 
sacrament  ;  and  must  be,  of  course,  objectively  present  with  it 
wherever  it  is  administered  under  a  true  form.  *  *  *  It 
belongs  to  the  ordinance  in  its  own  nature.  *  *  *  The  sign 
and  thing  signified  are  by  Christ's  institution,  mysteriously  tied 
together.  *  *'  *  The  two  form  one  presence."  P.  178.  In 
the  case  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  grace,  or  thing  signified,  is, 
according  to  this  book,  the  divine-human  nature  of  Christ,  "  his 
whole  person,"  his  body,  soul,  and  divinity,  constituting  one  life. 
This,  or  these  are  objectively  present  and  inseparably  joined  with 
the  signs,  constituting  with  them  one  presence.  The  power  in- 
separable from  the  theantbropic  life  of  Christ,  is  inseparable  from 
these  signs,  and  is  conveyed  with  them.  "  Where  the  way  is 
open  for  it  to  take  effect,  it  (the  sacrament)  serves  in  itself  to 
convey  the  life  of  Christ  into  our  persons."  P.  182.  We  know 
nothing  in  Bellarmine  that  goes  beyond  that.  Dr.  Nevin  refers 
for  illustration,  as  Lutherans  do,  to  the  case  of  the  women  who 
touched  Christ's  garment.  As  there  was  mysterious  supernatural 
power  ever  present  in  Christ,  so  there  is  in  the  sacraments. 
"  The  virtue  of  Christ's  mystical  presence,"  he  says  '"is  compre- 
hended in  the  sacrament  itself."  According  to  the  Keformed 
church,  Christ  is  present  in  the  sacraments  in  no  other  sense  than 
he  is  present  in  the  word.  Both  serve  to  hold  him  up  for  our  ac- 
ceptance. Neither  has  any  virtue  in  itself.  Both  are  used  by 
the  Spirit,  as  means  of  communicating  Christ  and  his  benefits  to 
believers.  "  Spiritualiter,"  says  Calvin,  "  per  sacramenta  fidem 
alit  (Deus),  quorum  unicum  officium  est,  ejus  promissiones 

OCULIS   NOSTRIS    SPECTANDAS    SUBJICERE,  IMG    NOBIS    EARUM    ESSE 

piGNORA."     Inst.,  iv.,  14.  12. 

We  here  leave  Dr.  Nevin's  book  ;  we  have  only  one  or  two  re- 
marks to  add  not  concerning  him,  nor  his  own  personal  belief, 
but  concerning  his  system.  He  must  excuse  our  saying  that,  in 
our  view,  it  is  only  a  specious  form  of  Rationalism.  It  is  in  its 
essential  element  a  psychology.  Ullman  admits  that  it  is  nearly 
allied  to  pantheistic  mysticism,  and  to  the  modern  speculative 
philosophy.  In  aU  three  the  main  idea  is,  "  the  union  of  God 
and  man  through  the  incarnation  of  the  first  and  deification  of 
the  second.'"     It  has,  however,  quite  as  strong  an  affinity  for  a 

'  Preliminary  Essay.  P.  45. 


390  DOCTRINE    OF    THE    REFORMED    CHURCH 

mucli  lower  form  of  Kationalism.  We  are  said  to  have  the  life 
of  Adam.  He  lives  in  us  as  truly  as  he  ever  lived  in  his  own 
person ;  we  partake  of  his  substance,  are  flesh  of  his  flesh,  and 
bone  of  his  bones.  No  particle  of  his  soul  or  body,  indeed,  has 
come  down  to  us.  It  all  resolves  itself  into  an  invisible  law.  This 
and  little  more  than  this,  is  said  of  our  union  with  Christ.  What 
then  have  we  to  do  with  Christ,  more  than  we  have  to  do  with 
Adam  ?  or  than  the  present  forests  of  oak  have  to  do  with  the 
first  acorn  ?  A  law  is,  after  all,  nothing  but  a  force,  a  power, 
and  the  only  Christ  we  have  or  need,  is  an  inward  principle. 
And  with  regard  to  spirits,  such  a  law  is  something  very  ideal, 
indeed.  Christ  by  his  excellence  makes  a  certain  impression  on 
his  disciples,  which  produced  a  new  life  in  them.  They  associate 
to  preserve  and  transmit  that  influence.  A  principle,  belonging 
to  the  original  constitution  of  our  nature,  was,  by  his  influence, 
brought  into  governing  activity,  and  is  perpetuated  in  and  by 
the  church.  As  it  owes  its  power  to  Christ,  it  is  always  referred 
back  to  him,  so  that  it  is  a  Christian  consciousness,  a  conscious- 
ness of  this  union  with  Christ.  We  know  that  Schleiermacher 
endeavored  to  save  the  importance  of  a  historical  personal 
Christ  ;  but  we  know  also  that  he  failed  to  prevent  his  system 
taking  the  low  rationalist  form  just  indicated.  With  some  it 
takes  the  purely  pantheistic  form  ;  with  others  a  lower  form, 
while  others  strive  hard  to  give  it  a  Christian  form.  But  its 
tendency  to  lapse  into  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  heresies  just 
mentioned,  is  undeniable. 

We  feel  constrained  to  make  another  remark.  It  is  obvious 
that  this  system  has  a  strong  affinity  for  Sabellianism.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Bible  and  the  creed  of  the  church  universal,  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  a  real  objective  personal  existence.  There  are  three 
distinct  persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  same  in  substance  and 
equal  in  power  and  glory.  Being  one  God,  where  the  Spirit  is  or 
dwells,  there  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  and  dwell.  And  hence, 
throughout  the  New  Testament,  the  current  mode  of  representa- 
tion is,  that  the  church  is  the  temple  of  God  and  body  of  Christ, 
because  of  the  presence  and  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who 
is  the  source  of  knowledge,  hoHness,  and  life.  What  the  Scrip- 
tures refer  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  this  system  refers  to  the  thean- 
thropic  nature  of  Christ,  to  a  nature  or  life  "  in  all  respects 
human."    This  supersedes  the  Holy  Spirit.    Every  reader,  there- 


ON    THE    lord's    SUPPER.  391 

fore,  must  be  strack  with  the  difficulty  Dr.  Nevin  finds  from  this 
source.  He  does  not  seem  to  know  what  to  do  with  the  Spirit. 
His  language  is  constrained,  awkward,  and  often  unintelhgible. 
He  seems,  indeed,  sometime  to  identify  the  Spirit  with  the  the- 
anthropic  nature  of  Christ.  "  The  Spirit  of  Christ,"  he  says,  "  is 
not  his  representative  or  surrogate  simply,  as  some  would  seem 
to  think ;  but  Christ  liimself  under  a  certain  mode  of  subsistence  ; 
Christ  triumphant  over  all  the  limitations  of  his  moral  (mortal  ?) 
state  (^(j)OTToi7]deig  nvevfian)  received  up  into  glory,  and  thus  in- 
vested fully  and  forever  with  his  own  proper  order  of  being  in  the 
sphere  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  P.  225.  The  Spirit  of  Christ,  is 
then  Christ  as  exalted.  On  the  following  page,  he  says  :  "  The 
glorification  of  Christ  then,  was  the  full  advancement  of  our 
human  nature  itself  to  the  power  of  a  divine  life  :  and  the  Spirit 
for  whose  presence  it  [the  glorification  of  Christ]  made  room  in 
the  world,  was  not  the  Spirit  as  extraanthropological  simply,  un- 
der such  forms  of  sporadic  and  transient  afflatus  as  had  been 
known  previously ;  but  the  Spirit  as  immanent  now,  through 
Jesus  Christ,  in  the  human  nature  itself — the  form  and  power, 
in  one  word,  of  the  new  supernatural  creation  he  had  introduced 
into  the  world."  Again,  "  Christ  is  not  sundered  from  the  church 
by  the  intervention  of  the  Spirit.  *  *  *  No  conception  can 
be  more  unbiblical,  than  that  by  which  the  idea  of  Spirit  (rrvevixa) 
in  this  case,  is  restrained  to  the  form  of  mere  mind,  whether  as 
divine  or  human,  in  distinction  from  body.  The  ivhole  glorified 
Christ  subsists  and  acts  in  the  Spirit.  Under  this  form  his  na- 
ture communicates  itself  to  his  people."  P.  229.  But  according 
to  this  book,  the  form  in  which  his  nature  is  communicated  to 
his  people,  is  that  of  "  a  true  human  life  ;"  it  is  a  human  nature 
advanced  to  a  divine  power,  which  they  receive.  The  Spirit  is, 
therefore,  not  the  third  person  of  the  Trinity,  but  the  thean- 
thropic  nature  of  Christ  as  it  dwells  in  the  church.  This  seems 
to  us  the  natural  and  unavoidable  interpretation  of  these  pas- 
sages and  of  the  general  tenor  of  the  book.  We  do  not  suppose 
that  Dr.  Nevin  has  consciously  discarded  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity ;  but  we  fear  that  he  has  adopted  a  theory  which  destroys 
that  doctrine.  The  influence  of  his  early  convictions  and  expe- 
rience, and  of  his  present  circumstances,  may  constrain  him  to 
hold  fast  that  article  of  the  faith,  in  some  form  to  satisfy  his  con- 
science.   But  his  system  must  banish  it,  just  so  far  as  it  prevails. 


392    DOCTRINE  OF  THE  REFORMED  CHURCH. 

Schleierraacher,  formed  under  different  circumstances,  and  less 
inwardly  trammelled,  openly  rejected  the  doctrine.  He  wrote  a 
system  of  theology,  without  saying  a  word  about  the  Trinity.  It 
has  no  place  in  his  system  ;  he  brings  it  in  only  at  the  conclusion 
of  his  work,  and  explains  it  as  God  manifested  in  nature,  God  as 
manifested  in  Christ,  and  God  as  manifested  in  the  church. 
With  him  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  Spirit  which  animates  the 
church.  It  had  no  existence  before  the  church  and  has  no  ex- 
istence beyond  it.  His  usual  expression  for  it  is,  "the  common 
spirit"  (Gemeingeist)  of  the  church,  which  may  mean  either 
something  very  mystical,  or  nothing  more  than  we  mean  by  the 
spirit  of  the  age,  or  spirit  of  a  party,  just  as  the  reader  pleases. 
It  is  in  point  of  fact  understood  both  ways. 


XI I 

THE  RESPONSIBILITIES  OF  BOARDS  OF  MISSIONS.^ 

It  is  a  matter  of  notoriety  that  the  American  Board  of  Com- 
missioners for  Foreign  Missions,  have  for  several  years  been 
sorely  harassed  on  account  of  their  supposed  patronage  or  tole- 
rance of  slavery.  Those  known  to  the  country  as  abolitionists, 
have  felt  it  to  be  a  duty  to  exj)ostulate  with  the  Board  from  time 
to  time,  for  receiving  money  from  the  owners  of  slaves,  for  em- 
ploying slaveholding  missionaries,  and  for  sustaining  mission 
churches  in  which  slaveholders  were  received  as  members.  The 
Board  have  thus  been  constrained  to  take  action  on  the  subject, 
and  on  several  occasions  have  given  deliverances  which  seemed 
to  satisfy  for  the  time,  the  great  body  of  their  patrons.  Still  the 
matter  has  not  been  suffered  to  rest.  With  a  view  apparently  of 
having  the  subject  finally  disposed  of,  the  Board  in  1847  adopted 
the  following  resolution,  viz.  :  "  That  the  Prudential  Committee 
be  requested  to  present  a  written  rej)ort  at  the  next  annual 
meeting,  on  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  control  which  is  to  be 
exercised  over  the  missionaries  under  the  care  of  the  Board  ; 
and  the  moral  responsibility  of  the  Board  for  the  nature  of  the 
teaching  of  the  missionaries,  and  for  the  character  of  the 
churches." 

In  the  meantime,  the  Prudential  Committee  directed  the  Rev. 
S.  B.  Treat,  one  of  the  secretaries,  to  visit  the  Cherokee  and  Choc- 

'  1.  American  Board  of  Commissioimrs  for  Foreign  Missions.  Special  Report  of 
the  Prudential  Committee,  on  the  control  to  be  exercised  over  Missionaries  and  Mission 
Churches.  Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Board  at  the  Annual  Meeting.  Revised  edition. 
Press  of  T.  R.  Marvin. 

2.  Correspondence  between  the  Che^-ohee  and  Choctaw  Missions,  the  Rev.  S.  B.  Treat, 
and  the  Prudential  Committee.  Missionary  Herald,  October,  1848. — Princeton  Re- 
view, January,  1849. 


S94      RESPONSIBILITIES    OF    BOARDS    OF     MISSIONS 

taw  Missions,  "  to  ascertain,  as  fully  as  practicable,  the  state  and 
prospects  of  those  missions  ;  and  to  enquire  more  particularly 
into  their  relations  to  the  subject  of  slavery."  Mr.  Treat  devoted 
seventeen  weeks  to  this  visitation.  He  held  full  conference  with 
the  missionaries,  and  at  his  request,  each  mission  addressed  a  let- 
ter to  the  committee,  exhibiting  "  their  views  and  principles  in 
detail,"  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  Subsequently  he  drew  up  a 
report  to  the  Prudential  Committee  of  his  visit,  which  report, 
together  with  the  letters  just  mentioned,  and  the  reply  made  by 
the  committee  through  Mr.  Treat,  are  all  published  in  the  Mis- 
sionary Herald  for  October,  1848. 

The  report  of  the  Prudential  Committee,  above  mentioned, 
was  submitted  to  the  Board  at  its  late  meeting  in  September  last, 
"but  as  the  members  had  not  time  to  give  the  subject  that  con- 
siderate attention  which  its  importance  demanded,  the  final  dis- 
position of  the  same  was  postponed."  Mr.  Treat's  report  on  his 
mission,  and  the  correspondence  to  which  it  gave  rise,  were  read 
to  the  Board,  and  by  them  referred  to  a  committee  who  reported 
that  they  abstained  from  expressing  any  opinion  either  on  the  let- 
ters of  the  missions  or  on  that  of  Mr.  Treat 'in  reply,  because  they 
constitute  a  part  of  an  unfinished  correspondence,  and  because 
no  final  action  could,  with  propriety,  be  had  at  that  time.  It 
was  therefore  resolved,  that  "  the  whole  subject  should  be  left  for 
the  present,  where  it  now  is,  in  the  hands  of  the  Prudential  Com- 
mittee," Neither  of  these  important  documents,  therefore,  has 
yet  received  the  sanction  of  the  Board.  In  the  meantime  they 
are  published,  in  various  forms,  for  information  and  discussion. 

There  are  several  reasons  which  determine  us  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  our  readers  to  these  documents.  In  the  first  place,  the 
principles  contained  in  the  Report  of  the  Prudential  Committee 
on  the  control  of  missionaries,  are  of  great  importance,  affecting 
the  whole  nature  and  organization  of  the  church.  In  the  next 
place,  those  principles,  and  the  whole  subject,  have  as  direct  a 
bearing  on  the  missionary  operations  of  our  church,  as  upon  those 
of  the  American  Board.  Thirdly,  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  the 
very  design  of  the  extensive  publication  of  these  papers,  is  to 
elicit  friendly  discussion.  And  finally,  the  first  and  most  strin- 
gent application  of  the  principles  of  Mr.  Treat's  letter,  is  to 
ministers  and  churches  of  one  of  our  own  presbyteries. 

The   questions   embraced   in  the  Report  are   discussed   with 


4l8  to  missionaries  and  mission  churches.  395 

singular  skill  and  wisdom.  In  most  points  we  are  happy  in 
agreeing  with  its  excellent  authors.  From  some  of  their  positions 
we  are  forced  to  dissent ;  and  as  far  as  Mr.  Treat's  letter  is 
concerned,  dissent  must  assume  the  form  of  a  solemn  protest, 
which,  in  that  particular  case,  every  Presbyterian  is  entitled  to 
enter. 

The  first  class  of  subjects  discussed  in  this  Eeport  relate  to  the 
general  principles  of  ecclesiastical  polity. 

It  is  specially  interesting  to  find  that  principles  which  retired 
men  have  gathered,  after  much  study,  from  the  Scriptures,  are 
those  which  practical  men  are  led  to  adopt  from  stress  of  circum- 
stances. The  providence  of  God  is  forcing  on  the  church  views 
of  its  nature  and  polity,  very  difierent  from  those  which  theorists 
have  in  many  instances  entertained.  It  is  well  known  e.  g.  that 
it  was  the  common  doctrine  of  all  denominations  that  ordinations 
sine  titulo  are  unscriptural ;  that  the  office  of  an  evangelist  was 
confined  to  the  early  age  of  the  church  ;  that  those  thus  designa- 
ted in  the  New  Testament,  were  the  vicarii  of  the  apostles,  vested 
with  extraordinary  powers  for  a  special  purpose  and  a  limited 
time.  To  congregationalists  no  less  than  to  prelatists,  a  bishop 
without  charge  was  as  much  a  solecism  as  a  husband  without  a 
wife.  A  call  from  the  people,  in  some  form,  was  regarded  as  an 
essential  part  of  a  call  to  the  ministry.  Even  Presbyterians, 
though  their  principles  involved  no  such  conclusion,  were  led  by 
their  circumstances,  to  entertain  a  like  disapprobation  of  such 
ordinations.  They  were  an  inconvenience.  The  whole  land  was 
possessed.  No  more  ministers  than  parishes  were  needed,  and 
therefore  it  was  thought  -v^ong  to  create  them. 

It  is  curious  to  see  how  all  those  parties  have  been  driven,  by 
the  course  of  events,  from  their  theory  on  this  subject.  Rome, 
petrified  in  one  rigid  form,  cannot  change,  and  therefore  perpe- 
trates the  absurdity  of  ordaining  men  to  extinct  or  imaginary 
dioceses.  Hence  we  hear  of  the  bishop  of  Heliopolis,  or  Ecbata- 
na,  or  Hieropolis,  even  here  in  America.  The  independents  when 
brought  into  contact  with  the  heathen,  were  for  a  long  time  in  a 
strait  what  to  do.  They  felt  that  it  was  a  crying  sin  to  allow 
their  fellow-men  to  perish  in  ignorance  of  the  gosj^el.  Christ, 
however,  had  provided,  according  to  their  system,  no  means  of 
sending  the  gospel  beyond  the  limits  of  organized  churches.  The 
office  of  evangelists  was  obsolete.     Nothins:  therefore  was  to  be 


396      RESPONSIBILITIES    OF    BOARDS    OF    MISSIONS 

done  but  to  allow  tlie  heathen  to  perish,  or  to  endeavor  to  plant 
churches  so  near  them  that  they  could  individually  be  brought 
under  Christian  influence.  Puritan  piety  soon  burnt  off  these 
tow  bonds  of  a  narrow  system.  The  absurdity  that  a  church, 
commissioned  and  required  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature, 
could  not  lawfully  have  any  preachers  except  among  those  already 
Christians,  was  soon  discarded.  Almost  every  accessible  portion 
of  the  heathen  world  has  been  visited  and  blessed  by  ministers 
ordained  in  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  original 
Congregationahsm.  Nay,  the  old  doctrine  seems  to  be  well-nigh 
forgot.  This  Eeport  says  with  as  much  confidence  as  though 
there  was  not  a  Congregationalist  alive,  "  The  denial  that  a 
missionary  is  an  ofiice-bearer  until  a  Christian  church  has  invited 
him  to  take  the  oversight  of  it  in  the  Lord,  is  made  in  utter  for- 
ge tfulness,  as  it  would  seem,  of  the  commission  by  which  a 
preaching  ministry  was  originally  instituted.  The  primary  and 
pre-eminent  design  of  that  commission  was  to  create  the  mission- 
ary office,  and  to  perpetuate  it  until  the  gospel  should  have  been 
preached  to  every  creature."  P.  6.  Ministers,  in  the  order  of 
nature  and  of  time,  are  before  churches.  The  missionary  work 
has  thus  wrought  a  complete  emancipation  of  our  Congregational 
brethren  from  a  portion  at  least  of  their  swaddling-clothes. 

The  Presbyterians  who  came  to  the  middle  States  were  scarcely 
less  strict  in  their  notions  on  this  subject,  than  the  Independents 
of  New  England.  They  had  larger  ideas  of  the  church,  and  a 
higher  view  of  the  ministry,  but  they  still  thought  that  a  theory 
elaborated  in  a  thickly  settled  country,  could  be  transferred  bodily 
to  this  new  world.  Because  Scottish  li^w  and  English  parliaments 
forbad  ordinations  sine  titulo,  they  thought  they  must  be  wrong 
in  themselves,  except  at  least  under  very  peculiar  circumstances. 
But  when  they  found  themselves  in  a  country  where,  instead  of 
every  square  foot  of  land  belonging  by  law  to  some  parish,  hun- 
dreds of  square  miles  contained  only  here  and  there  a  Christian 
family,  they  were  forced  to  have  more  ministers  than  organized 
churches.  Still  they  could  not  entirely  shake  off  the  prejudices 
of  education,  and  therefore,  as  our  early  records  show,  the  Pres- 
byteries were  constantly  coming  with  the  humble  request  to  the 
Synod,  for  permission  to  ordain  A.  B.  or  C.  D.  sine  titulo.  This 
doctrine  is  however  as  thoroughly  obsolete  as  the  dress  of  our 
forefathers.     As  a  matter  of  fact  the  churches  do  not  believe  it, 


AS    TO    MISSIONARIES    AND    MISSION    CHURCHES.     397 

and  they  do  not  practice  upon  it.  They  have  outgrown  it.  Trans- 
planted into  a  larger  sphere  and  awakened  to  a  sense  of  her  origi- 
nal vocation  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,  the  church 
feels  that  she  has  need  of  men  to  gather  churches  as  well  as  to 
supply  them,  of  men  to  exercise  on  all  occasions,  and  to  every 
willing  people,  and  not  to  one  congregation  only,  the  gifts  of  a 
dtddafcaXog.  She  has  turned  from  the  laws  of  European  nations, 
made  to  protect  hishops  and  rectors  in  the  undisturbed  possession 
of  their  livings,  to  the  New  Testament.  There  she  has  found  no 
such  trammels  as  to  the  exercise  of  her  right  to  ordain — and 
somewhat  to  her  surprise,  perhaps,  has  discovered  that  every 
minister  mentioned  in  the  Scripture  was  ordained  sine  titulo  ;  in 
other  words,  that  there  is  among  all  preachers  named  in  the  New 
Testament,  scarcely  one  who  was  pastor  of  a  particular  congre- 
gation. The  church  breathes  rather  more  freely  here  than  she 
did  in  the  crowded  countries  of  the  old  world.  It  will  be  labor 
thrown  away  to  attempt  to  bring  her  again  into  bondage.  This 
is  one  good  service  done  the  church  by  the  missionary  work,  for- 
eign and  domestic. 

A  second  benefit  to  be  expected  from  the  same  source  is  the 
gradual  banishment  of  high-churchism,  and  the  consequent  pro- 
motion of  catholic  unity.  By  high-churchism  we  mean  the  dis- 
position to  attribute  undue  importance  to  the  external  organiza- 
tion of  the  church  ;  the  desire  to  make  everything  relating  thereto 
a  matter  of  divine  right  ;  and  to  insist  that  no  society,  however 
orthodox  and  pure,  can  be  a  church  unless  organized  in  one  par- 
ticular form.  Tliis  disposition  has  deep  root  in  human  nature. 
The  external  and  visible  is  ever  too  apt  to  overshadow  the  spirit- 
ual. It  is  not  therefore  only  in  Komanists  and  Prelatists,  but 
even  in  Presbyterians  and  Independents  we  see  manifestations  of 
this  spirit.  Things  are  made  obligatory,  which  God  has  left 
indifferent.  Points  are  regarded  as  essential  which  are  either 
unimportant  or  injurious.  This  spirit  perverts  the  very  nature 
of  religion.  It  subjects  the  conscience  to  human  authority.  It 
alienates  those  who  ought  to  be  united,  and  is  the  cause  of 
almost  all  the  schism  which  afflicts,  disgraces,  and  impedes  the 
church. 

We,  as  Presbyterians,  of  course  believe  that  the  essential  prin- 
ciples of  our  system  are  laid  down  in  Scripture  ;  that  there  is  no 
office  jure  divino  superior  to  that  of  presbyters  ;  that  the  people 


398      RESPONSIBILITIES    OF    BOARDS    OF   MISSIONS 

have  a  right  by  theu*  representatives  to  take  part  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church,  and  that  the  whole  church  is  one,  and  hence 
a  part  is  responsible  to  a  larger  portion,  or  to  the  whole.  But 
we  neither  believe  that  any  one  mode  of  organization  is  essential 
to  the  being  of  the  church,  nor  that  the  details  of  any  system  of 
church  polity  are  laid  down  in  Scripture  as  universally  obligatory. 
The  idea  that  the  church  has  no  discretion  in  such  matters,  no 
liberty  to  adapt  herself  to  her  varying  circumstances,  is  derived, 
in  no  small  measure,  from  pressing  unduly  the  analogy  between 
the  old  dispensation  and  the  new.  Because  everything  was  pre- 
scribed to  the  Hebrew  church,  it  is  inferred  that  there  must  be 
an  express  divine  warrant  for  every  arrangement  adopted  in  the 
Christian  church.  Thus  also  it  argued  that  because  there  was  a 
priesthood  then,  there  must  be  a  priesthood  now  ;  because  the 
church  and  state  were  united  then,  they  must  be  united  now. 
The  old  economy  was  a  visible  theocracy,  and  therefore  the  new 
dispensation  must  be  the  same.  Strange  to  say,  this  was  the  great 
argument  and  the  great  mistake,  ahke  of  Papists  and  Puritans, 
of  the  persecuting  Dominicans  and  of  the  intolerant  Covenant- 
ers. There  is  nothing  to  favor  this  doctrine.  The  old  dispensa- 
tion was  designed  for  one  people,  for  one  very  limited  country,  for 
a  specific  object,  and  for  a  limited  time.  Most  of  its  institutions 
also  were  typical,  and  therefore  of  necessity  fixed.  The  institu- 
tions of  the  Christian  church  are  not  prophetic,  neither  are  they 
limited  to  one  people.  They  are  designed  for  all  nations,  for  all 
ages,  and  for  every  part  of  the  globe.  It  is  inconceivable  that  any 
one  outward  form  of  the  church  can  be  suited  for  all  these  differ- 
ent circumstances.  We  can  readily  believe  that  one  style  of 
building  and  one  mode  of  dress  might  suit  all  parts  of  Palestine, 
but  who  can  believe  that  God  would  prescribe  the  same  garments 
for  the  Arabs  and  the  Laplanders,  It  is  therefore  a  pWoW  in  the 
highest  degree  improbable  that  God  ever  intended  to  deny  to  his 
church  all  discretion  as  to  the  details  of  her  organization.  When 
we  open  the  New  Testament,  the  first  thing  that  strikes  the  at- 
tention of  the  reader  is,  its  comparative  silence  on  this  subject. 
It  is  truth,  repentance  towards  God,  and  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  ;  it  is  the  way  of  reconciliation  with  God  and  restoration 
to  the  divine  image,  which  are  the  prominent,  overshadowing 
subjects  there  presented.  Prelatists  meet  this  difficulty  by 
acknowledging  the  flict,  but  appealing  to  tradition  as  of  equal 


AS  TO  MISSIONARIES   AND   MISSION    CHURCHES.     399 

authority  with  the  Scriptures.  Those  Protestants  who  adopt 
the  jus  divinum  principle,  are  oUiged  to  substitute  conjecture  as 
to  what  was  done,  in  place  of  positive  commands  as  to  what  we 
should  do.  The  fact  that  God  has  not  commanded  Christians  to 
adopt  any  one  mode  of  organization,  is  proof  enough  that  he  in- 
tended to  leave  his  people  free,  within  certain  prescribed  limits, 
to  adapt  their  church  polity  to  their  circumstances. 

This  is  the  conclusion  to  which  the  work  of  missions  is  for- 
cing all  denominations  of  Christians.  This  Report  avows  that 
it  is  found  impracticable  to  transfer  bodily  to  heathen  countries, 
any  of  the  forms  of  church  organization  adopted  in  Christian 
lands.  With  regard  to  religious  teachers  the  committee  uses 
the  following  language :  "  Considering  the  weakness  and  way- 
wardness so  generally  found  in  men  just  emerging  from  hea- 
thenism, native  pastors  must  for  a  time,  and  in  certain  respects, 
be  practically  subordinate  to  the  missionaries,  by  whom  their 
churches  were  formed,  and  through  whom,  it  may  be,  they  are 
themselves  partially  supported.  ■••'•"  *  *  Should  a  practical 
parity,  in  all  respects,  be  insisted  on  between  the  missionaries 
and  the  native  pastors,  in  the  early  periods  when  everything  is 
in  a  forming  state,  it  is  not  seen  how  the  native  ministry  can  be 
trained  to  system  and  order,  and  enabled  to  stand  alone,  or  even 
to  stand  at  all.  As  with  ungoverned  children,  self-suiBciency, 
impatience  of  restraint,  jealousy  and  other  hurtful  passions  will 
be  developed.  The  native  pastors  themselves  are,  for  a  season, 
but  babes  in  Christ,  children  in  experience,  knowledge,  and  char- 
acter. And  hence  missionaries,  who  entertain  the  idea  that  or- 
dination must  have  the  effect  to  place  the  native  pastors  at  once 
on  a  perfect  equaUty  with  themselves,  are  often  backward  in 
intrusting  the  responsibilities  of  the  pastoral  office  to  natives."  P. 
7.  "  It  must  be  obvious  that  the  view  just  taken  of  this  subject 
involves  no  danger  to  the  future  parity  of  the  native  ministry, 
considered  in  their  relation  to  each  other,  for,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  the  missionary  office  is  scarcely  more  successive  and  com- 
municable to  native  pastors  than  the  apostolic  office  to  evan- 
gelists." P.  8. 

This  appears  to  us  perfectly  reasonable  and  scriptural.  No 
one  would  think  of  instituting  a  democracy  among  recently 
emancipated  slaves,  especially  where  they  formed  a  majority  of 
the  community.     It  is  not  inconsistent  with  our  republicanism 


400      RESPONSIBILITIES    OF    BOARDS    OF   MISSIONS 

that  we  keep  the  Indian  tribes  on  our  borders  in  a  state  of  pu- 
pilage, or  for  a  time  appoint  the  governors  and  judges  of  our 
Territories.  It  is  a  plain  scriptural  principle  that  superiority 
should  be  acknowledged  and  respected.  Parents  are  superior 
to  their  immature  children,  and  therefore  it  is  the  will  of  God 
that  children  should  obey  their  parents.  The  inspired  apostles 
were  superior  to  all  other  ministers,  and  therefore  they  had  au- 
thority over  the  whole  church.  The  Romish  theory  on  this  sub- 
ject is  right  enough,  it  is  only  false  in  fact.  That  theory  is,  that 
the  bishops  are  apostles,  and  therefore  have  a  right  to  govern  the 
church.  We  admit  that  if  they  were  apostles,  that  is,  inspired 
and  infallible  men,  they  would  indeed  have  a  right  to  rule,  and 
that  to  resist  them  would  be  disobedience  to  God.  But  as  they 
are  no  more  inspired  than  other  men,  and  are  often  in  all  respects 
the  inferiors  of  their  brethren,  to  claim  for  them  a  divine  right 
to  rule,  becomes  an  unscriptural  and  most  hurtful  usurpation. 
It  is  not  the  mere  transient  inequalities  as  to  age  and  capacity, 
such  as  exist  among  men  born  and  educated  under  the  same 
circumstances,  that  can  lay  any  adequate  foundation  for  offi- 
cial subordination.  It  must  be  of  such  a  nature  as  in  the  cases 
referred  to,  as  creates  a  real  incapacity  on  the  one  side  to 
share  in  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  the  other  side.  That 
such  a  disparity  does  exist  between  European  and  American 
missionaries  and  their  heathen  converts,  cannot  be  denied.  Such 
converts,  however,  must  be  emjiloyed  as  religious  teachers,  both 
because  the  field  is  far  too  large  for  the  missionaries  to  cultivate 
alone,  and  because  in  this  way  only  can  a  native  ministry  be 
trained  up.  Being  however  children  in  comparison  to  the  mis- 
sionaries, they  must  be  treated  as  such.  They  are  in  such  a 
sense  inferior  that  they  must  be  subordinate.  The  providence 
of  God  has  already  forced  the  missionaries,  especially  in  the 
Sandwich  Islands,  to  act  upon  this  principle.  There  a  single 
missionary  has  under  his  care  a  church  with  four  or  five  thou- 
sand communicants.  This  supposes  a  congregation  of  from  ten 
to  fifteen  thousand  persons.  It  is  impossible  that  the  pastor  can 
adequately  minister  to  such  a  multitude.  He  must  have  helpers. 
Those  assistants  must  be  taken  from  among  the  native  converts. 
The  pastor  selects  them,  assigns  them  their  district  or  sphere  of 
labor,  tells  them  what  they  must  do,  superintends  their  instruc- 
tions, and  advances  them  from  one  kind  of  duty  to  a  higher  as 


AS   TO   MISSIONAKIES   AND    MISSION   CHURCHES.      401 

they  increase  in  capacity.  Whatever  names  may  be  given  to 
these  assistants,  it  would  be  hard  to  find  anything  on  scriptm-al 
grounds  to  object  to  such  an  arrangement. 

As  to  the  organization  of  mission  churches,  the  Report  before 
us  says  :  "  When  the  time  comes  for  organizing  native  converts 
into  churches,  the  missionaries,  acting  in  behalf  of  these  children 
in  knowledge  and  in  the  power  of  self-organization  and  govern- 
ment, cannot  properly  be  restrained  by  foreign  interference, 
from  conforming  the  organization  to  what  they  regard  as  the 
apostolical  usage  in  similar  cases,  having  respect,  of  course,  to 
those  necessary  limitations  already  mentioned." '  P.  31.  ''  The 
result  may  be  a  much  simpler  organization  for  the  mission 
churches,  than  is  found  in  lands  that  have  long  sat  under  the 
light  and  influences  of  the  gospel.  Indeed,  experience  has  clearly 
shown,  that  it  is  not  well  to  attempt  the  transfer  of  religious  de- 
nominations of  Christendom,  full-grown  and  with  all  their  peculi- 
arities, into  heathen  lands,  at  least  until  the  new-born  churches 
shall  have  had  time  to  acquire  a  good  degree  of  discriminative 
and  self-governing  power.  The  experience  acquired  in  lands  long 
Christian,  partially  fails  us  when  we  go  into  heathen  countries. 
We  need  to  gain  a  new  experience,  and  to  revise  many  of  our 
l)rinciples  and  usages  ;  and  for  this  purpose  to  go  prayerfully  to 
the  New  Testament."  P.  31. 

"  The  religious  liberty  which  we  ourselves  enjoy,  is  equally 
the  birth-right  of  Christian  converts  in  every  part  of  the  heathen 
world,  on  coming  into  the  spiritual  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ, 
which  they  may  claim  as  soon  as  they  are  prepared  for  it  ;  just 
as  American  freedom  is  the  birth-right  of  our  own  children. 
The  right  of  our  children  is  not  infringed  by  that  dependence 
and  control  which  they  need  during  their  infancy  and  childhood. 

'  Reference  is  here  made  to  pp.  12,  13  of  the  Report,  where  it  is  said  the  missionary 
comes  under  certain  well  understood  pledges.  "1.  As  to  Ms  manner  of  life;  which  is 
to  be  one  of  exemplary  piety  and  devotion  to  his  work.  2.  As  to  his  teacJiing ;  which 
must  be  conformed  to  the  evangelical  doctrines  generally  received  by  the  churches, 
and  set  forth  in  their  well  known  Confessions  of  Faith.  3.  As  to  ecclesiastical  usages; 
to  which  he  must  conform  substantially  as  they  prevail  among  the  churches  operat- 
ing through  the  Board.  He  must  liold  to  a  clerical  parity  among  the  brethren  of  the 
mission.  He  must  hold  to  the  validity  of  inflxnt  baptism.  He  must  admit  only  such 
to  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  give  credible  evidence  of  faith  in  Christ.  So  far  as  his  rela- 
tion to  the  Board  and  his  standing  in  the  mission  are  concerned,  he  is  of  course  not 
pledged  to  conform  his  proceedings  to  any  other  book  of  discipline  than  the  New  Tes- 
tament." 

26 


402      EESPONSIBILITIES    OF    BOARDS    OF    MISSIONS 

It  is  even  their  right  to  claim,  that  the  parent  shall  thus  act 
for  them  in  the  early  stages  of  their  existence.  But  the  wise 
parent  will  always  form  the  principles  and  hahits  of  his  child 
with  reference  to  the  time  when  the  right  of  self-control  must 
be  fully  exercised  and  yielded.  In  like  manner  the  missionary 
must  needs  give  form,  at  the  outset,  to  the  constitution  and  habits 
of  mission  chm'ches,  and  for  a  time  he  must  virtually  govern  them. 
But  he  will  do  this  with  a  constant  regard  to  a  coming  period, 
when  those  churches  must  and  will  act  independently."    P,  32. 

Experience  then  has  led  the  authors  of  this  Report  to  recog- 
nize the  following  principles.  1.  That  a  call  from  a  church  is 
not  necessary  to  a  call  to  the  ministry  ;  or,  that  ministers  may 
properly  be  ordained  sine  titulo;  or,  that  the  office  of  an  evan- 
gelist is  not  obsolete.  2.  That  such  evangelists  have  all  the 
rights  and  prerogatives  belonging  to  the  ministerial  office.  They 
are  true  office-bearers  in  the  church  of  God.  3.  That  they  may 
exercise  a  wide  discretion  as  to  the  mode  in  which  they  organize 
churches  gathered  from  among  the  heathen.  4.  That  mission 
churches  have  all  the  rights  which  belong  to  other  Christian 
churches,  though  for  a  time  they  may  properly  be  retained  in  a 
state  of  pupilage. 

These  principles  must  commend  themselves  to  every  candid 
reader.  Regeneration  does  not  convert  an  African  into  a  Eu- 
ropean, or  a  Hindoo  into  an  American.  The  heathen  among 
whom  our  missionaries  labor  are  far  behind  the  Jews,  Greeks,  and 
Romans  to  whom  the  apostles  preached.  As  the  church  is  to  be 
established  among  all  sorts  of  men,  Hottentots,  Hindoos,  Sand- 
wich Islanders,  Indians,  Greeks,  and  Barbarians,  wise  and  unwise, 
it  must  have  liberty  to  adapt  itself  to  these  diverse  chcumstances. 
To  transfer  Congregationalism  to  a  heathen  country,  would  be 
destructive,  and  has  been  found  impossible.  This  fact  should 
teach  our  eastern  brethren  that  their  system  is  not  jure  divino 
for  all  Christians,  and  should  moderate  the  tone  of  assumption, 
which  in  some  parts  of  the  country,  has  begun  to  prevail  on  this 
subject.  We  do  not  pretend  that  Scotch  Presbyterianism  can 
be  transferred  bodily  to  our  infant  missionary  churches.  But  we 
are  disposed  to  make  this  claim  in  behalf  of  the  genuine  princi- 
ples of  continental  and  American  Presbyterianism,  They  have 
an  elasticity  which  admits  of  their  being  suited  to  every  change 
of  circumstances.     It  is  no  violation  of  those  principles  to  have 


AS   TO   MISSIONARIES    AND   MISSION    CHURCHES,      403 

preaching  and  teaching  elders,  subordinate  to  the  pastor,  as  in 
the  French  churches  ;  nor  where  suitable  elders  are  scarce,  to 
have  several  churches  under  one  session  or  consistory  as  in  various 
parts  of  Europe.  We  believe  that  God  has  mercifully  left  his 
people  at  liberty,  within  certain  general  principles  laid  down  in 
his  word,  to  modify  their  church  polity  as  his  providence  may 
render  expedient,  and  yet  under  all  these  forms  to  remain  faith- 
ful to  the  radical  principles  of  Presbyterianism.  It  is  not  our 
purpose,  however,  to  glorify  Presbyterianism  ;  on  the  contrary 
we  wish  to  express  our  sympathy  with  the  catholic  spirit  of  this 
Report,  and  to  show  how  much  against  the  providence  as  well  as 
the  word  of  God,  is  the  exclusive  high-church  principle,  which 
would  transfer  to  the  Christian  church  all  the  trammels,  which, 
for  wise  reasons,  were  imposed  on  the  church  before  the  advent. 

The  second  subject  considered  by  the  committee  is  the  respon- 
sibility of  missionaries. 

What  security  have  the  churches  at  home  for  the  fidelity  of  the 
men  sent  to  plant  the  gospel  among  the  heathen  ?  The  answer 
given  to  this  question  is — 1.  The  care  taken  in  the  selection  of 
the  men.  2,  The  definite  and  well-understood  engagement  into 
which  the  missionary  enters.  3.  His  claim  to  support,  like  that 
of  a  pastor,  depends  on  his  fulfilling  his  engagements.  4.  The 
Board  have  a  right  to  enforce  this  fidelity,  not  by  ecclesiastical 
censures,  but  by  dissolving  the  connection  of  the  missionary  with 
itself  and  mth  the  mission.  5.  The  mutual  watch  and  care  of 
the  missionaries  over  each  other,  and  the  direct  influence  of  truth 
on  their  minds  and  hearts.  6.  The  influence  of  public  sentiment 
at  home.  The  missionaries  know  that  in  a  peculiar  manner  the 
eyes  of  the  church  are  fixed  upon  them,  and  that  any  failure  on 
their  part  must  be  attended  with  special  disgrace.  To  all  this  is 
to  be  added,  if  not  included  under  number  five,  the  responsibil- 
ity of  the  missionary  to  the  ecclesiastical  body  at  home  to  which 
he  may  belong.  These,  to  say  the  least,  are  as  secure  pledges  for 
the  faithful  discharge  of  their  duties  as  can  be  given  by  ministers 
in  this  country.  Experience  shows  this  to  be  the  case.  They 
have  their  infirmities  and  their  difficulties ;  but  it  is  matter  of 
devout  thankfulness  to  God,  that  American  missionaries  have 
been  an  honor  and  blessing  to  their  country,  and  sustain  a  char- 
acter in  all  respects  equal  to  any  similar  body  of  men  in  the  for- 
eign field. 


404      RESPONSIBILITIES    OF    BOARDS    OF   MISSIONS 

The  rights  and  responsibilities  of  the  Board  in  relation  to  mis- 
sionaries and  mission  churches,  is  the  third  topic  discussed. 

This  is  much  the  most  difficult  and  delicate  di^dsion  of  the 
whole  subject.  The  principles  advocated  in  this  Report  are  the 
following :  1.  The  Board  has  no  ecclesiastical  control,  properly 
speaking,  either  over  the  missionaries  or  their  churches.  It  can 
neither  depose,  nor  excommunicate,  nor  in  any  way  affect  the  ec- 
clesiastical standing  of  those  under  his  care.  Pp.  13,  22.  2.  It 
has  the  right  to  enforce  fidelity  on  the  part  of  the  missionaries 
to  their  engagements.  Those  engagements  include  among  other 
particulars,  a.  Exemplary  Christian  conduct,  h.  Correct  relig- 
ious teaching,  c.  Conformity  to  established  ecclesiastical  usages. 
d.  Proper  diligence  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties.  Pp.  12,  13, 
21,  38.  3.  The  rule  by  which  the  Board  purpose  to  judge  of  the 
religious  teaching  of  their  missionaries  is,  "the  evangelical  doc- 
trines generally  received  by  the  churches,  and  set  forth  in  their 
well-known  Confessions  of  Faith."  P.  13.  "Many  things,"  it  is 
said,  "  which  at  first,  it  might  seem  desirable  for  the  Board  to 
do,  are  found  on  a  nearer  view,  to  lie  entirely  beyond  its  jurisdic- 
tion ;  so  that  to  attempt  them  would  be  useless,  nay,  a  ruinous 
usurpation.  Nor  is  the  Board  at  liberty  to  withdraw  its  confi- 
dence from  missionaries,  because  of  such  differences  of  opinion 
among  them,  as  are  generally  found  and  freely  tolerated  in  jDres- 
byteries,  councils,  associations,  and  other  bodies  here  at  home." 
P.  17.  The  standard  of  judgment  as  to  matters  of  polity  is, 
"the  ecclesiastical  usages"  which  "prevail  among  the  churches 
operating  through  the  Board."  ' '  While  the  Board  may  not  es- 
tablish new  principles  in  matters  purely  ecclesiastical,  it  may 
enforce  the  observance  of  such  as  are  generally  acknowledged  by 
the  churches,  and  were  understood  to  be  acknowledged  by  the 
missionaries  v/hen  sent  to  their  fields."  P.  13.  4.  The  Board  is, 
therefore,  "responsible  directly,  in  the  manner  which  has  been 
described,  for  the  teaching  of  the  missionaries."  P.  38.  5.  The 
Board  is  not  responsible  directly  for  the  character  of  the  mission 
churches.  If  there  be  evils,  even  scandalous  wickedness  in  those 
churches,  they  can  be  reached  only  through  the  missionaries.  P. 
39.  When  evils  exist,  however,  in  the  mission  churches,  the 
committee  may  and  must  inquire  whether  the  missionaries  are 
doing  their  duty. 

This  we  believe  to  be  a  correct  statement  of  the  views  of  the 


AS   TO    MISSIONAEIES    AND    MISSION    CHURCHES.      405 

committee  in  relation  to  their  authority  and  responsibility  in  ref- 
erence to  the  missionaries  and  the  mission  churches.  From  this 
it  appears  that  the  committee  claim  for  the  Board  the  right  not 
only  .to  enforce  the  fidelity  and  diligence  of  those  under  its  care, 
as  missionaries,  but  their  correct  teaching  and  discipline,  as  min- 
isters. It  is  assumed  that  the  Board  has  the  right,  in  all  cases, 
to  judge  of  that  correctness.  They  can  inflict  no  ecclesiastical 
censure,  but  they  can  dissolve  the  connection  between  the  mis- 
sionary and  the  mission  for  error  in  doctrine,  or  discipline. 

We,  of  course,  do  not  controvert  all  the  positions  above  quoted 
from  the  Report.  Nor  do  we  deny  that  the  Board,  under  pecuHar 
circumstances,  may  rightfully  exercise  all  the  powers  here  claimed 
in  its  behalf.  The  above  view  of  the  subject,  however,  involves, 
in  our  judgment,  an  important  misapprehension  of  the  relation 
of  the  Board  both  to  the  churches  at  home,  and  to  the  mission- 
aries and  churches  abroad.  The  Board  is  simply  the  agent,  and 
not  the  plenipotentiary  of  the  church.  It  does  not  stand  in  the 
place  of  the  church,  nor  is  it  invested  with  all  the  oversight 
and  control  over  the  missionaries,  which  the  church  may  properly 
exercise.  It  stands  related  to  those  whom  it  sends  out,  as  mis- 
sionaries, and  not  as  ministers.  Every  such  messenger  to  the 
heathen  sustains  a  twofold  relation,  the  one  as  a  missionary  to 
the  Board,  the  other  as  a  minister  to  his  ecclesiastical  superiors 
or  associates.  To  the  former,  he  is  responsible  for  his  conduct 
as  a  missionary  ;  he  must  go  where  he  is  sent ;  stay  where  he  is 
requu-ed  to  remain  ;  perform  that  part  of  the  missionary  work 
which  may  be  assigned  to  him,  &c.,  &c.  To  the  latter,  he  is  re- 
sponsible for  his  doctrines  and  ministerial  conduct.'  When  a 
missionary  stands  isolated,  or  has  no  ecclesiastical  supervisors,  or 
none  who  can  act  as  such,  then  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  the  con- 
sideration of  his  doctrine  and  acts  of  discipline,  falls  under  the 
cognizance  of  the  Board  ;  not,  however,  as  a  part  of  their  ap- 
propriate function,  but  on  the  same  principle  that  in  cases  of 
emergency,  every  citizen,  and  not  merely  the  police,  is  bound  to 
enforce  the  law  of  the  land. 

The  case  of  a  missionary  is  analogous  to  that  of  an  officer  of 
the  army.  Every  such  ofliccr  bears  a  twofold  relation ;  the  one 
to  his  military  superiors,  the  other  to  the  civil  authorities.  As 
an  officer,  he  is  to  be  judged  by  the  articles  of  war  ;  as  a  citizen, 
by  the  laws  of  the  land.   For  the  Secretary  at  War,  or  command- 


406      EESPONSIBILITIES    OF    BOARDS    OF   MISSIONS 

ino;-aeneral,  to  take  into  his  hands  the  administration  of  the  civil 
law,  is  equivalent  to  the  j^roclamation  of  martial  law.  In  like 
manner  for  the  Board  of  Missions  to  undertake  to  judge  of  mat- 
ters of  doctrine  and  discipline,  would  be  like  putting  the  whole 
missionary  world  in  a  state  of  siege. 

If  the  Board  be  the  agent  of  the  churches  for  the  conduct  of 
missions,  it  is  clear,  1.  That  it  has  the  right  to  select  and  send 
forth  missionaries,  to  determine  their  location,  to  superintend 
and  direct  their  labors,  to  enforce  fidelity  and  diligence,  and  in 
general  to  do  whatever  is  requisite  for  the  successful  prosecution 
of  their  work,  which  is  not  otherwise  provided  for.  2.  That  the 
Board  has  the  power  to  discard  any  missionary  at  pleasure,  *,  e., 
for  any  reason  that  to  them  may  seem  sufficient.  It  may  be  in- 
competency, indolence,  ill-temper,  or  any  other  cause.  3.  The 
only  question  is.  What  are  the  reasons  yfhioh.  justify  an  exercise 
of  that  power  ?  It  is  evident  that  those  reasons  may  be  perfectly 
adequate  ;  or  they  may  be  insufficient ;  or  they  may  be  such  as 
involve  a  breach  of  trust  on  the  part  of  the  Board  toward  the 
churches.  If,  for  example,  they  should  discard  a  missionary  be- 
cause he  was  a  Calvinist  or  Psedo-baptist,  that  would  clearly  be 
a  breach  of  faith  with  those  churches  for  whom  they  act  and 
from  whom  they  derive  their  funds.  4.  The  points  on  which 
we  think  it  important  to  insist  are  these  :  First,  that  no  doctrine 
or  mode  of  teaching  can  be  an  adequate  ground  for  discarding 
any  missionary,  which  doctrine  or  mode  of  teaching  is  sanctioned 
by  the  churches  operating  through  the  Board ;  and  that  no 
mode  of  church  organization,  or  condition  of  church  membership, 
can  be  a  justifiable  reason  for  withholding  aid  and  fellowship 
from  a  mission  church,  which  mode  of  organization  and  condi- 
tion of  church  membership,  is  approved  by  those  churches.  And 
secondly,  that  the  question  whether  a  given  doctrine  is  consistent 
with  the  faith  of  those  churches,  or  a  given  mode  of  organization, 
or  condition  of  church  membership  is  compatible  with  their  dis- 
cipline, is  one  for  those  denominations  and  not  for  the  Board  to 
decide.  That  is,  the  Board  cannot  go  behind  the  decisions  of 
those  churches,  and  pronounce  that  to  be  inconsistent  with  their 
doctrines,  which  they  say  is'  consistent,  or  that  to  be  incompati- 
ble with  their  discipline,  which  they  say  is  conformable  to  it. 

It  is  hardly  to  be  presumed  that  the  Prudential  Committee 
would  dissent  from  either  of  these  propositions  as  thus  stated. 


AS    TO    MISSIONARIES    AND    MISSION    CHURCHES.    40T 

And  yet  they  are  very  different  from  the  principles  of  their  re- 
port, and  lead  to  widely  different  practical  results.  The  principal 
points  of  difference  are  these  two.  First.  The  Report  assumes 
that  the  Board  is  directly  responsible  for  the  teaching  of  the  mis- 
sionaries, and  of  course  have  the  right  to  superintend  and  direct 
it.  Hence  Jhe  committee  call  upon  the  missionaries  and  interro- 
gate them,  Do  you  think  so  and  so  ?  Do  you  teach  thus  and 
thus  ?  According  to  our  view  this  responsibility  does  not  rest 
upon  the  committee  (unless  as  a  derelict)  but  upon  the  ecclesias- 
tical body,  presbytery,  classis,  or  association  to  which  the  mission- 
ary belongs.  Second.  The  Report,  as  a  necessary  consequence  of 
the  assumed  responsibility  on  the  part  of  the  Board  for  the  teach- 
ing of  the  missionaries,  claims  for  it  the  right  of  judgment  of 
that  teaching  ;  of  deciding  whether  it  is  consistent  with  the  gen- 
erally received  doctrines  of  the  churches  ;  and  of  matters  of  church 
polity  and  discipline,  whether  they  are  consistent  or  otherwise 
with  established  ecclesiastical  usage.  We  on  the  other  hand, 
must  deny  to  the  Board  any  such  right  (except,  as  before  said,  in 
the  absence  of  the  legitimate  judges  of  such  matters).  The  right 
of  judging  must  rest  where  the  responsibility  is 

That  our  view  of  this  important  subject  is  the  correct  one,  we 
think  will  appear  from  the  following  considerations.  1.  The  Board 
is  not  an  ecclesiastical  body.  It  disclaims  all  ecclesiastical  autho- 
rity. But  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  orthodoxy  of  ministers,  to 
determine  whether  their  doctrines  are  consistent  with  "  the  well- 
known  Confession  of  Faith,"  or  their  principles  of  polity  and  dis- 
cipline, with  established  ecclesiastical  usage,  is  one  of  the  very 
highest  and  most  difficult  duties  of  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal.  It 
is,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  ecclesiastical  control  in  the  truest 
and  highest  sense  of  the  term.  It  is  of  no  account  to  say  that 
the  Board  cannot  affect  the  ecclesiastical  standing  or  privileges 
of  those  whom  it  judges.  The  nature  of  the  cause  depends  on 
the  matter  tried,  and  not  on  the  character  of  the  penalty.  Depo- 
sition and  excommunication  are  rare  ecclesiastical  inflictions. 
Admonition  and  other  milder  censures  are  much  more  frequent. 
That  the  effect  of  an  unfavorable  decision  by  the  Board  is  dis- 
grace, the  loss  of  standing  and  the  loss  of  support,  instead  of 
temporary  suspension  from  church  privileges,  does  not  alter  the 
case.  If  the  judgment  be  rendered  for  error  in  doctrine,  it  is  an 
ecclesiastical  judgment,  whatever  may  be  the  nature  of  the  pen- 


408       RESPOXSIBILITIES    OF    BOARDS    OF    MISSIONS 

alty.  In  England,  the  courts  having  jurisdiction  over  cler^ynieu, 
for  clerical  offences,  vs^hether  the  Court  of  Arches  or  the  Privy 
Council,,  are  courts  of  ecclesiastical  control,  even  though  the 
penalty  they  impose  be  fine  or  loss  of  stipend.  The  report  says  : 
"  The  question  assumes  a  plain  business  form — whether  there  is 
an  actual  departure  from  the  basis  on  v^diich  the  missionary  aj)- 
pointment  was  made,  and  what  efi'ect  it  has  exerted  on  the  peace 
and  usefulness  of  the  mission,  and  on  the  operations  of  the 
Board."  (P.  22.)  This  is  not  one  whit  a  plainer  question,  nor 
one  whit  more  a  business  matter,  than  a  trial  for  heresy  before  a 
presbytery.  In  this  latter  case,  the  simple  question  is,  "  whether 
there  is  an  actual  departui'e  from  the  basis  on  which"  the  man  was 
received  into  the  presbytery.  If  the  latter  is  an  ecclesiastical 
question  so  is  the  former.  They  are  both  questions  relating  to 
the  orthodoxy  of  ministers.  And  the  body  authorized  to  sit  in 
judgment  on  that  question,  is  vested  with  ecclesiastical  jurisdic- 
tion. The  right  therefore  to  judge  of  such  matters  does  not  be- 
long to  the  Board,  for  by  common  consent  they  have  no  ecclesias- 
tical control. 

;  2.  This  authority  to  judge  in  matters  of  doctrine  does  not  be- 
long to  the  Board.  It  was  never  committed  to  them  by  any 
power,  human  or  divine.  It  does  not  inhere  in  them  in  virtue 
of  their  constitution,  nor  has  it  been  delegated  to  them  by  the 
churchesT) 

3.  It  is  an  authority  which  the  Board  is  not  competent  to  ex- 
ercise. The  Board  itself  meets  but  once  in  the  year,  and  that  only 
for  a  few  days.  Its  authority  is  really  in  the  hands  of  the  Pru- 
dential Committee.  Such  a  committee,  however,  is  evidently  not 
a  competent  tribunal  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  ministerial  charac- 
ter, the  orthodoxy  or  heterodoxy,  of  hundreds  of  missionaries  in 
Jill  parts  of  the  world.  They  are,  in  many  cases  laymen,  and 
have  not  the  competent  knowledge.  Lawyers  would  not  like  to 
see  clergymen  set  to  administer  the  laws  of  the  land.  And,  with- 
out disrespect,  it  may  be  said,  that  if  there  is  anything  from 
which  ministers  and  the  church  need  pray  to  be  delivered,  it  is 
from  being  subject  to  civil  judges,  in  ecclesiastical  matters.  Judge 
Roger's  decision  has  given  a  wholesome  lesson  on  that  subject  to 
old-school  Presbyterians,  and  the  decision  of  Judge  Gribson,  we 
hope,  has  been  equally  beneficial  to  our  new-school  brethren. 
Besides  the  incompetency  arising  from  w^ant  of  training,  any  such 


AS    TO    MISSIONARIES    ATSTD    MISSION    CHTJRCHES.    409 

body  as  the  Prudential  Committee,  is  too  remote  from  the  person 
to  be  tried.  They  cannot  adequately  examine  into  any  such  case, 
unless  it  happens  to  be  one  of  the  most  open  and  notorious  char- 
acter. They,  cannot,  however,  calculate  upon  always  having  cases 
of  that  kind.  They  may  be  called  upon  to  determine  whether  a 
given  doctrine  is  not  Arminian  or  Pelagian,  and  a  real  denial  of  the 
well-known  creed  of  the  churches.  Besides  all  this  they  have  no 
promise  of  divine  guidance  in  this  matter. 

4.  The  power  in  question  is  both  onerous  and  dangerous.  One 
would  think  the  Prudential  Committee  had  work  enough  on  their 
hands,  in  superintending  so  many  missions  in  every  part  of  the 
world,  with  all  their  complicated  concerns,  without  assuming  the 
additional  burden  of  directing  the  teaching,  and  judging  the 
orthodoxy  of  some  hundreds  of  missionaries.  We  doubt  not  the 
committee  would  rejoice  to  see  themselves  exempted  from  all  re- 
sponsibility on  that  subject.  It  is  besides  rather  incongruous 
with  our  Protestant,  and  especially  with  our  American  ideas,  that 
five  or  six  men  in  Boston  or  Nev/  York,  should  have  the  power  to 
determine  what  doctrines  shall,  and  what  shall  not,  be  taught  in 
Europe,  Asia,  Africa  and  America  ;  and  to  decide  whether  this 
or  that  opinion  is  consistent  with  the  standards  of  evangelical 
churches.  How  much  controversy  have  we  had  on  that  very 
point  in  all  parts  of  the  country.  How  earnestly  has  it  been  de- 
bated in  New  England  itself.  How  decided  were  such  men  as 
Cornelius  and  Nettleton  that  certain  doctrines,  whose  advocates 
were  neither  few  nor  inconsiderable,  ought  not  to  be  tolerated  in 
our  churches  at  home  or  abroad.  Is  the  Prudential  Committee 
prepared  to  decide  all  these  litigated  points  ?  They  must  of  ne- 
cessity either  exercise  an  intolerable  power,  or  they  must  in  a 
great  measure  let  things  take  their  course.  Generally  they  would 
pursue  the  latter  method,  and  every  now  and  then  the  former. 
But  the  churches  never  can  long  recognize  a  power  at  war  with  all 
our  ecclesiastical  institutions.  It  would  be  very  much  like  the 
republicanism  which  they  have  in  Paris  under  General  Cavaignac. 

5.  It  is  altogether  unnecessary  that  the  power  to  inspect  the 
teaching  of  the  missionaries,  and  to  judge  of  their  doctrines, 
should  be  lodged  in  the  hands  either  of  the  Board  or  of  the  Pru- 
dential Committee.  It  is  far  more  safe  and  effective,  if  lodged 
elsewhere.  The  committee  do  not  receive  a  missionary  in  the  first 
instance,  on  the  ground  of  any  personal  knowledge  of  his  ortho- 


410      RESPONSIBILITIES    OF    BOARDS    OF    MISSIONS 

doxy.  They  do  not  subject  him  to  any  theological  examination. 
They  take  his  orthodoxy  for  granted  on  the  authority  of  the  pres- 
bytery or  the  council  that  ordained  him.  They  may  refuse  to 
receive  him  for  ill-health,  ignorance,  unamiableness,  or  other 
reasons  of  like  nature,  but  they  could  not  refuse  his  services  be- 
cause he  held  any  oj^inion  which  the  church  to  which  he  belongs, 
and  the  body  which  ordained  him,  pronounce  to  be  sound.  In 
the  fiist  instance  then,  the  committee  are  relieved  of  the  respon- 
sibility of  judging  of  matters  of  doctrine,  and  disclaim  all  right 
to  review  the  decisions  of  competent  church  courts.  When  the 
missionary  enters  upon  his  field,  he  retains  his  ecclesiastical  con- 
nexion, whatever  it  was.  He  remains  a  minister  of  the  Dutch,  of 
the  Presbyterian,  or  of  the  Congregational  church  or  denomina- 
tion. In  all  ordinary  cases,  three,  six,  or  more  ministers,  belong  to 
one  station.  If  they  are  Presbyterians  they  form  a  Presbytery, 
if  Congregationalists,  an  Association.  There  is  just  the  same 
oversight  over  the  orthodoxy  of  a  member  of  the  Choctaw  Pres- 
bytery of  Indiana,  as  over  that  of  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York.  There  is  just  as  much  security  for  the  correct  teach- 
ing of  a  Congregational  minister  in  Ceylon,  as  for  that  of  a 
similar  minister  in  Connecticut.  In  all  such  cases  the  responsi- 
bility rests  with  the  ministerial  associates  of  the  missionary.  It 
is  the  doctrine  of  all  the  churches  operating  through  the  Board, 
that  a  minister  is  subject  to  his  brethren  through  the  Lord.  That 
subjection  is  neither  thrown  off  nor  transferred  when  he  becomes 
a  missionary.  If  no  man  or  committee  is  entitled  to  question  a 
member  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  or  the  Association  of 
East  Windsor,  about  his  doctrines,  no  man  or  committee  can 
question  the  members  of  a  presbytery  or  association  in  a  foreign 
land. 

Placing  the  responsibility  for  the  teaching  of  the  missionaries, 
and  the  right  to  judge  concerning  it,  on  their  ministerial  asso- 
ciates, has,  it  seems  to  us,  every  thing  in  its  favor.  It  is  accord- 
ing to  principle.  It  is  what  all  churches  do  in  this  country,  and 
what  they  all  say  ought  to  be  done.  It  is  one  of  the  most 
valuable  rights  of  the  ministry.  It  is  to  them  what  trial  by  jury 
is  in  the  State.  It  is  far  more  safe  and  effective  as  a  method  of 
control.  It  relieves  the  committee  of  a  burdensome,  invidious, 
and  most  dangerous  prerogative.  And  finally  it  is  right,  and  the 
other  Avronof. 


AS  TO  MISSIONAEIES   AND   MISSION   CHURCHES.     411 

It  has  already  been  admitted,  that  where  a  missionary  is 
perfectly  isolated,  where  he  has  no  ministerial  associates,  then, 
from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  his  responsibility  is  to  the  com^ 
mittee.  But  these  are  rare  cases,  and  ought  not  to  be  permitted 
to  occur. 

6.  Operating  on  the  principle  here  advocated,  would  free  the 
committee  from  a  great  deal  of  embarrassment.  The  Congrega- 
tional, Reformed  Dutch,  and  a  large  part  of  the  Presbyterian 
churches,  make  the  American  Board  their  agent  for  conducting 
foreign  missions.  These  denominations  have  severally  their 
standards  of  doctrine,  and  each  its  own  method  of  determining 
what  is  and  what  is  not  consistent  with  its  faith  and  discipline. 
Let  them  decide  such  matters.  So  long  as  a  minister  is  rectus 
in  ecclesia  with  the  Dutch  or  the  Presbyterians,  the  committee 
are  free  from  all  responsibility  as  to  his  doctrine.  So  long  as 
those  churches  allow  of  a  certain  mode  of  church  organization, 
or  condition  of  church  membership,  the  committee  have  nothing 
to  say  in  the  matter.  If  the  venerable  Mr.  Kingsbury  stands 
well  in  his  own  presbytery,  the  five  or  six  gentlemen  in  Boston 
composing  the  Prudential  Committee,  may  well  rest  satisfied 
with  his  doctrines.  If  father  Spaulding,  in  Ceylon,  has  the 
confidence  of  all  his  ministerial  associates,  the  churches  in  this 
country  will  not  be  suspicious  of  his  orthodoxy.  If  the  Reformed 
Dutch  or  Presbyterians  allow  those  who  drink  wine  or  hold 
slaves  to  come  to  the  Lord's  table,  the  blame,  if  there  be  any, 
rests  with  them.  How  can  the  committee  help  it  ?  Will  they 
withhold  the  money  contributed  by  those  denominations  from 
churches  who  do  exactly  what  they  are  allowed  to  do  by  their 
ecclesiastical  superiors  ?  The  committee  themselves  say  they 
cannot  withdraw  their  confidence  from  any  missionary  for  any 
opinion  tolerated  by  the  churches  at  home.  (P.  17.)  Then  why 
not  let  the  churches  decide  whether  a  doctrine  or  usage  is  tole- 
rated in  fact,  and  ought  to  be  so.  This  is  all  we  contend  for, 
viz.,  that  it  rests  with  the  churches,  i.  e.,  with  the  regular  eccle- 
siastical authorities,  to  judge  whether  the  doctrines  and  discipline 
of  the  missionaries  and  their  churches  are  to  be  tolerated  or  not. 
We  can  hardly  think  of  a  case  where  this  principle  would 
not  apply.  In  all  the  large  missions  of  the  Board,  there  are 
ministers  and  church  members  enough  to  constitute  as  trust- 
worthy a  tribunal  as  can  be  formed  at  home.     If  those  ministers 


412        RESPONSIBILITIES    OF   BOARDS   OF    LIISSIONS 

form  a  presbytery  or  classis,  there  is  aa  appeal  from  their  decis- 
ion to  the  Synod  or  Grcnera]  Assembly.  If  they  form  an  asso- 
ciation or  council,  that  is  the  highest  tribunal  known  to  the 
Congregational  churches.  If  a  mission,  presbytery,  or  association 
become  decidedly  heretical,  they  are  to  be  treated  precisely  as 
such  bodies  would  be  treated  at  home.  But  the  question  of 
heresy  is  one  for  the  churches  and  not  for  the  committee  to  de- 
cide. The  New  School  General  Assembly  allow  slaveholders 
to  come  to  the  Lord's  table.  Shall  the  committee,  agents  of  the 
New  School  Presbyterians,  refuse  to  sustain  such  churches,  or 
shall  they  throw  the  responsibility  on  the  denominations  to  which 
the  churches  belong  ?  We  tliink  the  latter  is  the  only  course 
consistent  with  right  principles,  or  compatible  with  the  harmo- 
nious action  of  the  numerous  patrons  of  the  Board. 

Much  therefore  as  we  admire  this  Report  in  many  of  its  fea- 
tures, and  greatly  as  we  respect  the  source  whence  it  proceeds, 
we  cannot  but  believe  that  the  committee  have  misconceived  the 
relation  in  which  the  Board  stands,  as  well  to  the  churches  at 
home,  as  to  the  missionaries  abroad.  The  Board  is  not  the  plen- 
ipotentiary of  the  churches,  to  secure  the  orthodoxy  of  mission- 
aries or  the  purity  of  mission  churches.  It  is  an  agent  for  em- 
ploying such  missionaries  and  planting  such  churches  abroad,  as 
the  churches  at  home  approve.  The  missionaries  are  responsible 
to  the  Board  for  their  fidelity  and  diligence  as  missionaries,  but 
for  their  doctrines  and  discipline  as  ministers,  they  are  responsi- 
ble to  the  denominational  churches  to  which  they  belong,  which 
churches  are  represented  by  the  ministerial  associates  with  whom 
the  missionaries  are  connected. 

We  have  not  said  a  word  ag-ainst  the  oro'anization  of  the 
Board.  We  would  not  for  any  consideration  lisp  a  syllable 
that  could  in  any  way  do  them  harm.  We  most  unfeignedly 
rejoice  in  their  great  success  and  usefulness.  We  conceive  we 
are  doing  them  a  friendly  act  in  publishing  this  review.  It  is 
right  to  discuss,  with  respect  and  kind  feeling,  a  question  in 
which  all  churches,  and  the  Presbyterian  especially,  are  deeply 
concerned.  We  beheve  it  is  perfectly  easy  for  the  American 
Board  so  to  conduct  their  operations,  as  not  to  come  into  collision 
with  the  rights  of  the  churches.  We  believe,  moreover,  that  any 
departure  from  that  way  will  be  found  to  be,  in  the  language  of 
this  Report,  "  a  ruinous  usurpation." 


AS  TO   MISSIONARIES   AND   MISSION    CHURCHES.      413 

That  the  misconception  of  the  true  relation  of  the  Board  to 
the  church  and  the  missionaries,  to  which  we  have  referred,  is  a 
very  serious  matter,  is  evident  from  the  letter  of  the  Kev.  Mr. 
Treat  to  the  Cherokee  and  Choctaw  missions.  In  the  existing 
state  of  the  church  and  of  the  country,  we  cannot  regard  the 
adoption  of  that  letter  by  the  Prudential  Committee,  and  its  pub- 
lication, as  anythhig  short  of  a  national  calamity.  The  elements 
of  strife  and  disunion  are  already  so  numerous  and  powerful, 
that  the  accession  of  a.  body,  among  the  most  influential  in  the 
whole  land,  to  the  side  of  separation,  must  be  regarded  as  a  most 
serious  event.  Should  that  letter  be  ultimately  sanctioned  by 
the  Board,  as  it  has  already  been  by  the  Prudential  Committee, 
the  consequences  must  be  disastrous.  As  soon  as  the  letter  was 
read,  its  true  character  was  apparent.  The  abolitionists  at  once 
said.  We  ask  nothing  more  ;  that  is  our  creed.  One  of  those 
abolitionists  since  his  return  home  has  published  a  manifesto, 
giving  an  account  of  his  visit  to  Boston,  of  his  fidelity  to  his 
principles,  and  of  the  action  of  the  Board.  In  that  publication, 
lie  says,  "  While  slavery  has  a  tolerated  existence  in  churches 
planted  and  watered  by  those  Boards  (of  Foreign  and  Domestic 
Missions),  it  will  be  impossible  to  bring  American  Christianity 
into  that  open  and  honest  antagonism  with  slavery,  which  is 
necessary  for  its  destruction,"  Mr.  Secretary  Treat  has  done 
what  was  promised  a  year  ago,  "  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  the 
most  decided  abolitionists  of  Boston  and  vicinity,  and  to  my 
own,"  "  If,"  says  he,  "  the  missionaries  obey  (the  instructions 
of  the  committee)  they  are  abolitionists.  If  they  disobey,  they 
will  be  dropped."  "  I  am  satisfied,"  he  adds,  "  with  the  above 
action  of  the  committee.  Deference  to  opposing  opinions  has 
made  them  use  much  indirectness  and  verbosity,  in  stating  their 
abolition  creed,  but  it  is  an  abolition  creed  nevertheless."  After 
referring  to  the  action  of  the  Board  in  the  premises,  he  says, 
"^I  see  not  what  the  Board  could  have  done  farther,  unless  they 
had  resolved  to  cut  off  the  missionaries  without  waiting  to  see 
whether  they  would  obey  the  instructions  of  their  committee 
or  not.  "Let  us  sustain  the  American  Board  in  the  anti- 
siavery  race  which  it  has  so  well  begun.  It  will  be  deplorable 
indeed,  if  anti-slavery  men  do  not  supply  any  falling  off  of  funds 
in  pro-slavery  sections  of  the  country.     Let  us  unitedly  move  the 


414       KESPONSIBILITIES    OF   BOARDS   OF    MISSIONS 

Home  Missionary  Society  to  plant  the  South  with  a  slavery  ex- 
pelling gospel." ' 

Such  is  the  interpretation  put  upon  Mr.  Treat's  letter  by  the 
abolitionists,  and  such,  we  are  deei)ly  grieved  to  say,  appears 
to  us  its  only  true  interpretation.  The  American  Board  of 
Commissioners  is  beyond  doubt  one  of  the  noblest  institutions 
of  benevolence  in  the  world.  All  Christians,  yea,  all  mankind 
are  interested  in  its  proper  management.  A  fearful  responsibility 
rests  on  those  who  are  at  the  helm  of  that  noble  ship.  Under 
the  guidance  of  strong  and  skilful  hands,  she  has  hitherto  weath- 
ered every  storm.  She  is  now  approaching,  with  all  her  canvas 
spread,  the  outer  circle  of  the  great  whirlpool  of  fanaticism.  The 
slightest  deviation  from  the  proper  course,  must  bring  her  within 
the  sweep  of  that  fearful  cm-rent.  Those  on  board  may,  for  a 
while,  exult  in  her  accelerated  motion.  But  every  practised  eye 
can  see,  from  the  quivering  of  her  sails,  that  such  acceleration  is 
due,  not  to  the  favoring  breezes,  but  to  the  dreadful  undertow, 
which  must  inevitably  engulph  every  thing  yielded  to  its 
power. 

A  brief  analysis  of  this  Letter  will  enable  the  reader  to  judge 
of  its  true  character.  There  are  three  points  as  to  which  it  ex- 
presses the  views  of  the  committee.  1,  As  to  slavery  and  slave- 
holding.  2.  As  to  the  duties  of  the  missionaries  in  relation  to  it. 
3.  The  power  and  authority  of  the  committee  in  the  premises. 

As  to  the  first  of  these  points  the  letter  says  :  "  Domestic 
slavery  is  at  war  with  the  rights  of  man,  and  opposed  to  the 
principles  of  the  gospel."  "  It  is  an  anti-christian  system,  and 
hence  you  have  a  right  to  deal  with  it  accordingly.  True,  it  is 
regulated  by  law,  but  it  does  not  for  that  reason  lose  its  moral 
relations.  Suppose  polygamy  or  intemperance  were  hedged  in  by 
legal  enactments,  could  you  not  speak  against  them  as  crying 
evils  ?" 

Though  the  system  is  always  and  everywhere  sinful,  yet  slave- 
holding  is  not  always  a  sin.  Provided,  1.  The  slaveholder  enters 
the  relation  and  continues  in  it,  involuntarily  ;  or,  2.  That  he  holds 
the  relation  simply  for  the  benefit  of  the  slave.  The  slaveholder 
may  indeed  misjudge  in  not  granting  immediate  emancipation.  In 
that   case,  "  the  continuance   of  the  relation  is  wrong,  but  the 

'  President  Blancbard's  Appeal,  as  given  in  the  Christian  Mirror,  Portland,  Novem- 
ber 30,  1848. 


AS   TO    MISSIONARIES    AND    MISSION    CHURCHES.     415 

master  may  stand  acquitted  in  the  sight  of  God,  because  influ- 
enced solely  by  benevolent  motives." 

Christ  and  his  apostles,  though  they  did  not  expressly  condemn 
slavery,  said  much  which  "  bears  strongly  against  it.  If  the 
single  precept,  '  Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you, 
do  you  even  so  to  them,'  were  carried  out,  it  would  cease  at  once 
in  all  its  essential  features."  The  directions  given  in  the  New 
Testament,  as  to  the  relative  duties  of  masters  and  slaves,  are 
said  to  be  "  consistent  with  the  hypothesis  that  the  apostles  re- 
garded the  general  relation  as  unnatural  and  sinful."  "  But 
why,"  asks  the  writer,  "  did  not  the  apostles  directly  affirm  the 
sinfulness  of  slavery  ?  Why  did  they  not  insist  on  the  duty  of 
emancipation  ?  Simply  because  (if  we  may  presume  to  give  an 
opinion)  they  saw  such  a  course,  in  their  circumstances,  would  not 
soonest  and  best  extirpate  the  evil." 

As  to  the  duty  of  missionaries,  in  reference  to  slavery,  this  let- 
ter teaches,  1.  That  they  should  denounce  it.  The  only  question 
is  as  to  time  and  mode.  This  must  be  left  to  their  discretion,  but 
apostolic  example  does  not  justify  continued  silence.  If  after 
twenty-five  years  that  time  has  not  yet  come,  in  those  Indian  mis- 
sions, the  committee  say,  "  We  may  well  ask,  When  will  it  come  ?" 
2.  If  a  recent  convert  is  connected  with  slavery,  the  missionary 
should  inquire  into  his  views  of  that  institution.  3.  If  he  pro- 
poses to  come  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  he  must  '^  prove  himself  free 
from  the  guilt  of  that  system,  before  he  can  make  good  his  title 
to  a  place  among  the  followers  of  Christ."  He  must  show  either, 
1.  That  his  "  being  the  owner  of  slaves  is  involuntary  on  his 
part,"  or,  2.  That  "  he  retains  the  legal  relation  at  their  request 
and  for  their  advantage,"  and  that  "  he  utterly  repudiates  the 
idea  of  holding  property  in  his  fellow-men."  3.  The  committee, 
"  denying  that  there  can  be  morally,  or  scripturally,  any  right  of 
property  in  any  human  being,  unless  it  be  for  crime,  and  holding 
that  the  slave  is  always  to  be  treated  as  a  man,  suppose  that 
whatever  is  done  in  plain  and  obvious  violation  of  these  princi- 
ples, may  properly  receive  the  notice  of  yourselves  and  your  ses- 
sions." 4.  The  missionaries  are  to  pursue  such  a  course  that  the 
mission  churches  may  soon  be  freed  "  from  all  participation  in 
a  system  that  is  so  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  and  so  re- 
gardless of  the  rights  of  man."  5.  They  are  to  abstain  from  using 
slave  labor.     "  It  is  with  profound  regret,"  the  committee  say, 


416       RESPONSIBILITIES    OF    BOARDS    OF    MISSIONS 

"'  that  we  have  learned  how  many  hired  slaves  are  now  in  the 
service  of  the  Choctaw  mission.  We  readily  acquit  you  of  any 
plan  or  purpose  to  disregard  our  known  wishes  on  this  subject. 
We  cheerfully  accept  the  excuse  you  offer,  namely,  that  the 
boarding-schools  established  in  1843,  in  consequence  of  an  arrange- 
ment made  with  the  Choctaw  government,  in  your  view  made 
such  assistance  necessary,  and  that  you  supposed  the  committee 
must  have  assented  to  its  employment."  "  This  engagement 
with  the  Choctaw  government  has  some  fifteen  years  to  run,  and 
yet  we  do  not  feel  willing  to  be  a  party  to  the  hiring  of  slaves  for 
this  long  period.  By  so  doing,  as  it  seems  to  us,  we  countenance 
and  encourage  the  system.  We  make  this  species  of  labor  more 
profitable  to  the  owner  ;  at  the  same  time  that  we  put  it  into  his 
]x)wer,  if  he  will,  to  plead  our  example  to  justify  or  excuse  the 
relation.  In  this  state  of  things,  it  appears  to  be  our  duty  to  ask 
you  first  of  all,  to  inquire  once  more  into  the  supposed  necessity 
of  this  practice,  and  to  see  if  slave  labor  cannot  in  some  way  be 
dispensed  with.  And  if  you  can  discover  no  method  by  Avhich  a 
change  can  be  effected,  we  submit  for  vour  consideration  whether 
it  be  not  desirable  to  request  the  Choctaw  government  to  re- 
lease us  from  our  engagement  in  respect  to  the  boarding-schools 
It  is  with  pain  that  we  present  this  alternative  ;  but  such  are 
our  views  of  duty  in  the  case,  that  we  cannot  suggest  a  different 
course." 

This  practical  question  as  to  the  propriety  of  employing  slave 
labor,  stands,  in  a  measure,  by  itself.  We  w^iuld  venture  to  re- 
mark respecting  it,  1.  That  as  it  is  properly  a  secular  matter, 
connected  immediately  with  the  schools,  which  are  the  property 
and  under  the  control  of  the  committee,  they  may  be  entitled  to 
use  the  strong  language  of  authority  which  is  emj)loyed  in  this 
letter.  2.  It  is  no  doubt  conceivable  that  to  employ  such  labor 
may  be  very  inexpedient.  If  any  considerable  number  of  Chris- 
tians are  offended  by  it,  or  if  any  are  thereby  led  into  sin,  it  may 
be  well  to  abstain  from  it,  on  the  same  principle  that  Paul  said  he 
would  eat  no  meat  while  the  world  stood,  if  meat  made  his 
brother  to  offend.  3.  The  reasons,  however,  assigned  by  the  com-* 
mittee  are  to  us  very  unsatisfactory.  Those  reasons  are  all  founded 
on  the  assumption  that  slaveholding  is  sinful.  Otherwise  there 
could  be  no  scruples  of  conscience  in  the  case.  The  committee 
would  not  hesitate  to  allow  the  missionaries  to  set  to  those  around 


AS   TO   MISSIONARIES   AND   MISSION   C  LURCHES.    417 

tliem  a  Christian  example  as  to  the  method  of  treating  and  in- 
structing slaves,  did  they  not  regard  the  "  relation  itself  as 
unnatural  and  sinful."  The  slaves  often  earnestly  desire  to  be 
employed  by  the  mission,  their  condition  is  thereby  improved,  their 
privileges  increased,  and  they  are  thus  brought  into  the  way  of 
religious  instruction,  and  i^crhaps  of  salvation.  Unless  slave- 
holding  is  a  sin,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  the  force  of  these  consid- 
erations is  to  be  resisted.  4.  The  committee  urge  that  by 
allowing  the  mission  to  hire  slaves,  they  sanction  the  system  and 
put  it  into  the  power  of  the  owner  to  plead  their  example  to  jus- 
tify the  relation.  This  is  not  the  fair  interpretation  of  their 
conduct.  Nothing  more  than  the  recognition  of  a  dc  facto  relation 
is  involved  in  employing  slaves.  No  opinion  is  thereby  expressed 
of  the  justice  of  the  relation.  When  one  government  recognizes 
another,  it  is  only  as  de  facto  not  as  de  jure.  It  would  involve 
endless  difficulty  and  doubt,  if  such  recognition  was  imderstood 
to  be  a  judgment  as  to  the  legitimate  or  equitable  title  of  the 
government  recognized.  It  is  so  also  with  matters  of  property. 
Does  every  man  who  buys  land  of  the  United  States,  thereby 
sanction  the  equity  of  all  the  treaties  by  which  that  land  was 
acquired  ?  The  settlers  in  New  Holland  are  not  understood  to  pro- 
nounce judgment  on  the  justice  of  the  sentences  by  which  the 
men  they  hire  are  consigned  to  bondage.  Those  who  employed, 
and  those  who  redeemed  the  Christian  captives  in  Algiers,  did  not 
sanction  the  piracy  by  which  those  captives  were  obtained.  What 
would  be  thought  of  a  father  who  should  allow  his  son  to  pine  in 
hopeless  bondage,  refusing  to  pay  his  ransom,  because  by  so  doing 
he  would  admit  the  right  of  his  master,  and  render  piracy  more 
profitable  ?  If  such  conduct  would  be  unnatural,  to  us  it  seems 
no  less  unnatural  that  a  Christian  Board  should  refuse  to  hire 
slaves  to  their  own  advantage,  refuse  to  bring  them  under  the 
influence  of  the  gospel,  lest  they  should  be  understood  to  sanc- 
tion slavery.  5.  The  principle  on  which  the  committee  act  in 
this  matter  cannot  be  consistently  carried  out.  Every  use  we 
make  of  the  product  of  slave  labor,  is  an  encouragement  to  slav- 
ery. If  all  men  were  to  agree  not  to  use  anything  in  the  produc- 
tion of  which  slaves  have  been  employed,  slavery  must  instantly 
cease.  This  is  not  done  here  at  the  North,  We  presume  it  is 
not  done  by  the  committee.  It  is  not  done  by  the  missionaries. 
They  doubtless  consume  the  wheat,  the  beef,  the   corn  which 

27 


418      RESPONSIBILITIES    OF    BOARDS    OF    MISSIONS 

slaves  have  assisted  in  raising.  It  therefore  seems  very  strange 
that  the  committee  should  say  they  will  give  up  their  schools 
rather  than  sanction  slavery,  when  they  will  not  give  up  the  sugar 
for  their  coffee  for  the  same  reason. 

The  missionaries  require  a  great  deal  of  assistance  in  their 
domestic  and  farming  operations.  Free  labor  is  very  difficult  to 
be  obtained.  The  plan  of  sending  out  assistant  missionaries,  has 
been  tried  and  failed.  The  use  of  slave  labor  has  been  sanctioned 
by  the  former  officers  of  the  Board.  In  1825  the  Prudential 
Committee  resolved,  that  they  "  did  not  see  cause  to  prohibit  the 
practice."  In  1836  they  resolved  to  dispense  altogether  with 
slave  labor,  but  on  a  representation  having  been  made  by  the 
missionaries  that  they  could  not  get  on  without  it,  "  the  matter 
was  left  to  their  Christian  discretion."  There  the  subject  has 
been  left  until  the  present  excitement  has  called  it  up,  and  so 
disturbed  the  conscience  of  the  committee,  that  they  are  forced  to 
submit  the  alternative  to  the  missionaries  to  give  up  their  schools 
or  to  do  without  slave  labor.  The  encouragement  given  to  slavery 
by  the  missions  hiring  a  few  slaves,  much  to  their  own  benefit,  is 
as  nothing  compared  with  that  afforded  by  the  wholesale  use  of 
the  products  of  slave  labor  by  the  good  people  of  Boston.  We 
are  sincerely  sorry  to  say  that  this  whole  letter  seems  to  us  full  of  a 
mistaken  spirit  ;  carping  at  trifles  in  laborious,  devoted,  men  in  the 
wilderness,  while  blind  to  tenfold  greater  evils  of  the  same  na- 
ture, which  pass  without  rebuke  in  our  pampered  churches  at 
home. 

The  doctrine  then  of  this  letter  is  that  slavery  is  everywhere 
and  at  all  times  sinful.  Christ  condemned  it,  though  not  in 
words.  The  apostles  abstained  from  denouncing  it,  only  on  mo- 
tives of  expediency.  Slaveholding  is  excusable  and  consistent 
with  church-membership  only  when  involuntary,  or  when  tempo- 
rarily continued  at  the  request  of  the  slave,  and  for  his  benefit. 
The  missionaries  are  to  inculcate  these  principles,  and  to  pursue 
such  a  course  as  shall  free  the  mission  churches  from  all  partici- 
pation in  the  system.  Even  hiring  slaves  is  to  be  abstained  from, 
though  the  consequence  be  the  disbanding  the  missionary  schools. 
We  have  never  understood  that  the  avowed  abolitionists  go  any 
further  than  this.  They  inculcate  these  doctrines  in  plainer 
terms,  and  in  a  more  straight-forward,  clear-headed  manner. 
They  are  more  peremptory  in  their  demands,  and  ^dolent  in  their 


AS    TO   MISSIONARIES    AND    MISSION    CHURCHES.     419 

spirit.     But  as  to  all  essential  matters,  their  doctrines  are  those 
here  presented. 

The  third  point  on  which  the  committee  touch,  is  their  own 
authority  in  reference  to  this  whole  subject.  They  say,  1.  "  We 
do  not  claim  any  direct  control  over  the  churches  which  you  have 
gathered,  nor  shall  we  ever  approach  them  in  the  language  of 
authority  or  dictation."  We  can  suppose  a  case  "  in  which  we 
might  be  constrained  by  the  sacredness  of  the  trust  committed  to 
us,  to  withhold  that  pecuniary  aid  it  has  given  us,  in  past  years, 
so  much  pleasure  to  afford."  2.  "  We  do  not  wish  you,  either 
individually  or  collectively,  to  bring  any  other  influence  to  bear 
on  those  churches  or  the  community  in  which  you  dwell,  except 
such  as  belongs  to  the  ministerial  office."  3.  "  We  do  not  design 
to  infringe  in  the  least,  by  what  we  shall  say  in  this  letter,  upon 
your  rights  as  ministers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  That  is,  the 
committee  does  not  claim  what,  even  a  presbytery  or  a  bishop, 
would  not  think  of  assuming,  the  right  of  dictation  in  matters 
of  discipline.  Nor  do  they  wish  the  missionaries  to  assume  that 
power  to  the  exclusion  of  their  session,  or  to  the  infringement  of 
the  rights  of  the  churches.  Nor  finally  do  they  claim  any  author- 
ity over  the  missionaries  themselves,  inconsistent  with  their  office 
as  ministers.  Their  whole  claim  is  that  they  have  the  right 
to  withhold  pecuniary  aid  from  those  churches  which  do  not  con- 
form their  discipline  to  the  views  of  the  committee  ;  and  from 
those  ministers  who  do  not  obey  their  instructions  as  to  their 
manner  of  teaching.  This  is  the  precise  doctrine  of  the  Report, 
viz.,  that  the  Board  are  responsible  for  the  teaching  of  the  mis- 
sionaries, and  therefore  have  the  right  to  examine  into  what  that 
teaching  is,  and  to  direct  what  it  should  be  ;  and  to  withdraw 
their  patronage  from  missionaries  and  churches  who  do  not  con- 
form to  their  instructions.  The  missionaries  have  been  led  to 
take  this  view  of  the  power  claimed  by  the  committee,  and  to  re- 
gard themselves  and  their  churches  as  entirely  in  the  hands  of 
the  Board.  If  on  account  of  our  views  on  this  subject,  they  say, 
"  the  Committee  or  Board  can  no  longer  sustain  us,  if  they  must 
withdraw  from  us  their  support,  and  so  far  as  they  are  concerned, 
leave  the  Cherokee  people  without  the  preaching  of  the  word  of 
God,  then  wherever  the  responsibility  belongs,  there  let  it  rest. 
«     *     *     WTg  pi-ay  the  committee  to  remember,  that  if  the  pat- 

'  The  Italics  are  not  ours.  • 


420      RESPONSIBILITIES    OF    BOARDS    OF    MISSIONS 

ronage  of  the  Board  be  withdrawn  from  us,  it  will  not  be  f  v/  the 
violation,  on  onr  part,  of  any  condition  on  which  we  were  sent 
into  the  field  ;  but  in  consequence  of  new  conditions,  with  which 
we  cannot  in  conscience  comply."  Again,  "  If  support  be  with- 
drawn from  us  on  account  of  views  which  we  have  expressed  in 
this  communication,  it  will  of  necessity  be,-  so  far  as  the  Board 
are  concerned,  an  entire  withholding  of  the  word  of  God  from  the 
Cherokee  people.  For  to  recall  us  on  this  ground,  and  to  send 
otliers  who  would  jmrsue  an  opposite  course,  would  be  manifestly 
preposterous  and  vain."  There  is  no  doubt,  therefore,  as  to  how 
the  missionaries  have  been  taught  to  \dew  this  matter.  So  also  in 
the  passage  quoted  above  from  President  Blanchard's  appeal,  it  is 
said  with  approbation,  "If  the  missionaries  obey,  they  are  aboli- 
tionists ;  if  they  disobey,  they  are  dropped."  The  committee 
claim,  therefore,  in  this  letter,  as  we  understand  them,  and  as 
they  seem  to  be  universally  understood,  the  right  to  withhold 
pecuniary  aid  from  missionaries  and  mission  churches  unless  they 
become  abolitionists. 

1.  Our  first  objection  then  to  this  letter,  as  may  be  inferred 
from  what  we  have  already  said,  is  that  it  proceeds  on  a  misap- 
prehension of  the  true  relation  and  powers  of  the  Board.  It 
assumes  that  the  Board  is  responsible  for  the  teaching  of  the 
missionaries,  and  therefore,  has  the  right  to  judge  of  it,  and  to 
direct  it.  This,  we  have  endeavored  to  show,  is  a  mistake.  The 
Board  are  the  agents,  and  not  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the 
churches.  The  churches  have  never  committed  to  them  the  right 
to  judge,  in  their  behalf,  of  Christian  doctrine,  or  of  deciding 
what  is  and  what  is  not  consistent  with  their  several  creeds. 
This  is  a  high  ecclesiastical  function,  which  belongs  only  to  eccle- 
siastical bodies.  The  Board  cannot  go  behind  the  official  judg- 
ment of  the  churches.  If  the  Presbyterian  church  has  pronounced 
a  certain  doctrine  consistent  with  her  standards,  the  Board  can- 
not dismiss  a  Presbyterian  missionary  from  their  service,  on 
account  of  holding  or  teaching  that  doctrine.  Nor  can  they 
withhold  their  support  from  any  mission  church,  under  the  care 
of  a  presbytery,  for  any  cause  which  the  Presbyterian  church  does 
not  consider  worthy  of  censure.  If  the  members  of  the  commit- 
tee discover  that  the  Presbyterian  church  holds  doctrines  or  tol- 
erates usages,  which  they  cannot  with  a  good  conscience  help  ta 
sustain,  the  simple  course  is  for  them  to  resign.     But  if  multi- 


AS   TO   MISSIONARIES   AND    MISSION   CHURCHES.     421 

tudes  sympathize  witli  them,  then  the  ftict  is  revealed  that  they 
and  the  Presbyterians  can  no  longer  unite  in  the  missionary  work. 
But  it  is  clearly  unreasonable  for  the  committee  to  profess  to  be 
agents  of  the  Presbyterian  church  (old  or  new),  and  yet  refuse  to 
be  guided  by  the  judgment  of  that  church.  The  New  School  Gren- 
eral  Assembly,  as  well  as  the  old,  has  decided  that  such  slavehold- 
ing  as  is  tolerated  in  the  mission  churches  of  the  Cherokees  and 
Choctaws,  is  consistent  with  Christian  character  and  fellowship. 
With  what  show  of  reason  then  can  the  Boston  committee,  the 
agents  of  these  Presbyterians,  in  disbursing  Presbyterian  money, 
say  it  shall  not  be  permitted  ?  It  is  clear  as  day  that  so  long  as 
the  Dutch,  Presbyterian,  and  Congregational  churches  unite  in 
the  work  of  missions,  the  Board  has  no  right  to  withdraw  their 
patronage  from  any  man  or  church,  on  account  of  any  doctrine  or 
usage  which  those  churches  approve.  And  it  is  no  less  clear  that 
the  right  to  judge  of  the  consistency  or  inconsistency  of  any  doc- 
trine or  usage  with  the  standards  of  those  churches,  rests  not  with 
the  committee,  but  with  the  churches  themselves.  To  deny  either 
of  these  propositions,  is  to  create  a  dictatorship  at  once.  The 
effect  of  this  misapprehension  is  clear  throughout  Mr.  Treat's 
letter.  The  secretary  summons  before  him  ministers  who  are 
members  of  presbytery  in  good  standing,  interrogates  them  as  to 
their  opinions,  their  mode  of  teaching,  and  exercise  of  discipline. 
He  lays  down  rules  as  to  how  that  teaching  is  to  be  conducted, 
and  the  terms  on  which  members  are  to  be  received  into  Pres- 
byterian churches.  He  gives  them  to  understand  that  the  com- 
mittee may  "be  constrained  by  the  sacredness  of  the  trust 
committed  to  them,  to  withhold  that  pecuniary  aid  it  has  given 
them,  in  past  years,  so  much  pleasure  to  afford."'  His  sole  legit- 
imate authority,  in  the  matter,  was  to  ask,  "  Brethren,  does  your 
church  approve  of  such  and  such  teaching  .^  and  does  it  sanction 
such  and  such  conditions  of  church-membership  T'  If  the  an- 
swer to  those  questions  is  affirmative,  the  matter  is  ended.  The 
committee  may  be  grieved,  or  they  may  be  glad.  Their  private 
opinions  are  not  to  be  in  the  least  consulted  in  such  cases.  As 
to  manner,  the  letter  is  unexceptionable.     It  is  couched  in  the 

'  That  aid,  however,  is  not  given  by  the  committee,  but  by  the  churches  through 
the  committee.  A  very  important  distinction.  If  given  by  the  committee,  it  may 
be  given  at  their  discretion — but  if  given  by  the  churches,  it  must  be  given  accord- 
ing to  their  pleasure,  i.  e.,  to  men  and  churches  whom  they  approve. 


422      RESPONSIBILITIES    OF     BOARDS    OF     MISSIONS 

blandest  terms.  It  was  evidently  penned  with  the  determination 
that  no  word  should  grate  on  the  most  delicate  ear.  Neverthe- 
less, it  is  perfectly  Archiepiscopal  in  its  tone.  It  was  written 
just  as  the  "  servant  of  servants"  is  wont  to  write  ;  or,  to  use  a 
better  illustration,  as  Paul  wrote,  when  he  said,  "  Wherefore, 
though  I  might  be  much  bold  in  Christ  to  enjoin  that  which  is 
convenient ;  yet  for  love's  sake  I  rather  beseech  thee,  being  such 
a  one  as  Paul  the  aged."  This  is  lovely  and  venerable  from 
apostolic  lips — but  apostolic  lips  have  long  since  been  sealed  in 
death.  We  do  not  in  the  least  attribute  the  apostolic  tone  of 
this  letter  to  anything  in  the  personal  feelings  of  its  authors. 
We  believe  them  to  be  good  men,  and  as  humble  as  the  rest  of 
us.  It  is  due  to  their  false  apprehension  of  their  position.  They 
are  not  entrusted  with  the  authority  which  they  suppose  belongs 
to  them.  So  long  as  the  ecclesiastical  bodies,  with  which  the 
missionaries  and  mission  churches  among  the  Cherokees  and 
Choctaws  are  connected,  are  satisfied  with  their  doctrine  and 
discipline,  the  Prudential  Committee  have  no  more  right  to  in- 
terfere in  the  matter  than  any  other  five  gentlemen  in  Boston. 

2.  Our  second  objection  to  this  letter  is  that  it  is  inconsistent 
with  the  Special  Report  of  the  Prudential  Committee.  It  agrees 
indeed  with  the  Report  in  claiming  the  right  to  sit  in  judgment 
on  the  teaching  of  the  missionaries,  and  to  control  it  according 
to  their  own  interpretation  of  the  general  creed  of  the  churches. 
It  differs,  however,  from  it  in  another  important  princij^le.  The 
Report  says  expressly,  the  Board  is  not  "  at  liberty  to  Avithdraw 
its  confidence  from  missionaries,  because  of  such  difierences  of 
opinion  among  them,  as  are  generally  found  and  freely  tolerated 
in  presbyteries,  councils,  associations  and  other  bodies  here  at 
home."  P.  17.  This  rule  follows  as  a  matter  of  course,  from 
what  is  said  on  pp.  13,  14,  as  to  the  standard  by  which  the 
Board  proposes  to  judge  of  doctrine,  viz.,  the  articles  of  faith 
"  generally  received  by  the  churches."  It  may  enforce  obedi- 
ence in  those  tilings  in  which  the  churches  are  united,  but  not 
in  those  cases  in  which  they  are  divided.  This  jirinciple  is  on 
p.  14  expressly  applied  to  slavery.  "  The  admission  of  slave- 
holders into  the  apostolical  clmrclies"  is  said  to  be  one  of  the 
points  about  which  the  churches  differ.  Hence  "  the  Board,"  it 
is  said,  "  may  not  undertake  to  decide,  that  this  class  of  persons 
was  certainly  admitted  to  church  membership  by  the  apostles, 


AS   TO  MISSIONARIES   AND   MISSION   CHURCHES,     423 

nor  that  they  were  excluded,  iii  such  a  way  as  to  have  the  effect 
on  the  missionaries  of  a  statute,  injunction,  or  Scripture  doctrine 
in  respect  to  the  admission  of  such  persons  into  churches  now 
to  be  gathered  in  heathen  nations  where  slavery  is  found." 
The  committee,  it  is  added,  may  reason,  persuade,  and  remon- 
strate, but  further,  neither  they  nor  the  Board,  are  authorized  to 
go.  Now  according  to  the  interpretation,  as  far  as  we  know, 
universally  put  upon  this  letter  ;  according  to  what  appears  to 
us  its  necessary  meaning,  and  according  to  the  understanding 
of  the  missionaries  themselves,  this  is  precisely  the  question 
the  committee  undertake  in  this  letter  authoritatively  to  de- 
cide. It  lays  down  the  rule  as  to  how  slaveholders  are  to  be 
dealt  with,  when  they  are  to  be  received,  and  when  rejected 
from  the  communion  of  the  church.  All  this  is  done  officially, 
and  with  authority,  and  with  the  intimation  that  the  continu- 
ance of  the  connexion  between  the  Indian  churches  and  the 
Board,  depends  upon  their  acting  agreeably  to  the  instructions 
here  given.  If  this  be  not  the  character  of  the  letter  it  loses 
all  its  importance.'  If  it  is  an  unofficial  letter  of  friendship, 
instead  of  a  letter  of  instructions,  why  should  it  be  so  sol- 
emly  sanctioned  by  the  committee,  reported  to  the  Board, 
and  their  decision  respecting  it  looked  to  us  as  determining  the 
ground  the  Board  was  hereafter  to  stand  upon  ?  It  would  be 
sad  news  for  the  abolitionists,  but  a  great  relief  to  the  mission- 
aries, and  to  the  Christian  public,  to  know  that  the  Board  re- 
nounces the  right  to  forbid  slaveholding  in  the  mission  churches 
on  pain  of  losing  their  patronage.  This,  however,  is  not  to  be 
%oped  for,  if  this  letter  expresses  their  views  of  their  own  au- 
thority. It  expresses  the-  sentiment  of  the  committee  on  the 
whole   subject   of  slavery,  calls   upon   the   missionaries  to  say 

'  The  writer  of  this  review  feels  called  upon  to  state  that  he  has  recently  received 
a  communication  from  one  of  the  ofiBcers  of  the  American  Board,  in  which  he  says, 
"  I  am  sure  it  [«'.  e.,  Mr.  Treat's  letter]  never  was  designed  to  have  any  such  legisla- 
tive authority;  nor  was  such  authority  over  desired  or  sought  for  it,  nor  has  the 
letter  such  authority  now.  The  action  of  the  Board  upon  it,  at  Hartford  in  the  year 
1854,  added  nothing  to  the  import  of  the  letter — did  not  change  its  nature.  It  is  not 
a  body  of  instructions,  but  of  opinions,  to  have  their  weight  and  influence  only  as 
such  among  the  missionaries."  This  alters  the  whole  aspect  of  the  case ;  and  the 
strictures  in  the  text  lose  their  force  so  far  as  they  rest  on  the  authoritative  character 
of  the  letter.  They  are  of  consequence  only  as  a  vindication  of  the  Choctaw  mission- 
aries who  regarded  the  letter  as  "  a  body  of  instructions." — A.ugust,  1856. 


424       RESPONSIBILITIES    OF   BOARDS   OF   MISSIONS 

whether  they  acquiesce  in  them,  and  are  ready  "  to  act  in  ac- 
cordance with  them."  The  committee,  therefore,  here  under- 
take to  decide  a  point-disputed  among  the  churches.  It  decides 
moreover  in  favor  of  the  minority.  It  proposes  a  doctrine  of 
church  communion  which  no  denominational  church  has  been 
left  to  adopt.  It  was  indignantly  voted  down  by  an  overwhelm- 
ing majority  (hundreds  to  units)  in  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Free  Church  of  Scotland,  It  was  rejected,  after  nearly  three 
weeks'  debate,  by  the  New  School  Assembly  in  Philadelphia. 
It  is  repudiated  by  the  Keformed  Dutch  church,  and  by  that 
branch  of  the  Presbyterian  church  with  whicli  some  of  these 
mission  churches  are  immediately  connected.  It  is  probably 
rejected  by  four-fifths  of  all  the  educated  converted  men  in  the 
world.  Yet  this  doctrine  the  official  organs  of  one  of  the  most 
influential  benevolent  institutions  in  the  world,  would  force  on 
the  ministers  and  churches  of  Christ.  It  would  be  better  for 
the  committee  to  cut  off  their  right  hands,  rather  than  cut  off 
the  Indian  churches  because  they  admit  slaveholders  to  their 
communion.  Not  because  of  any  pecuniary  loss  it  may  oc- 
casion, but  because  it  cannot  be  done  without  a  sacrifice 
of  principle,  without  subjecting  the  church  to  public  opinion, 
now  violently  this,  and  again  violently  that.  We  sincerely 
pray  that  the  Board  may  be  preserved  from  any  such  disastrous 
mistake. 

3.  Our  third  objection  to  this  letter  is,  that  it  is  pervaded  by  a 
false  philosophy.  This  is  no  small  evil.  It  is  a  recognized 
truth  that  the  world  is  governed  by  ideas.  The  character  of  men 
is  formed,  their  conduct  determined,  and  their  destiny  decided^ 
in  no  small  degree,  by  definitions.  It  is  the  view  which  they 
take  of  the  primary  principles  of  moral  and  metaphysical  truth, 
that  governs  their  opinions,  and  consequently  their  conduct.  The 
false  philosophy  of  this  letter  leads  to  wrong  views  of  duty,  and 
those  wrong  views  of  duty  to  a  course  of  measures  which,  if 
persisted  in,  must  split  the  American  Board  to  pieces,  and,  to 
the  extent  of  its  influence,  facilitate  first,  the  division  of  the 
American  churches,  and  then  the  dissolution  of  the  American 
Union. 

The  pliilosophy  on  which  this  communication  is  founded,  is 
what  is  popularly  called  "  the  doctrine  of  expediency."  It  is 
that  philosophy  in  which  the  words  "  right"  and  "  wrong,"  lose 


AS   TO   MISSIONAEIES   AND   MISSION   CHUECHES.      425 

their  distinctive  meaning,  and  become  the  mere  synonymes  of 
beneficial  and  injurious.  It  is  a  philosophy  which  makes  the 
end  sanctify  the  means,  and  teaches  that  an  action  may  be  ex- 
ternally wrong  and  internally  right.  This  is  the  philosophy  to 
which  all  the  doctrines  and  directions  of  this  letter  owe  their 
character.  This,  for  example,  is  the  origin  of  the  distinction 
between  "  slavery  and  slaveholding  ;"  between  "  the  system  and 
the  persons  implicated  therein."  The  system  is  always  sinful, 
but  those  who  practice  it  may  be  innocent.  "  The  continuance 
of  the  relation  is  wrong,  but  the  master  may  stand  acquitted  in 
the  sight  of  Grod,  because  he  was  influenced  solely  by  benevo- 
lent motives.  Just  as  the  selling  ardent  spirits,  in  the  days  of 
our  common  ignorance  on  the  subject  of  temperance,  was  clearly 
wrong  ;  and  yet  many  good  men,  never  imagining  that  they 
were  acting  contrary  to  the  law  of  love,  engaged  in  the  traffic. 
The  external  character  of  an  act  is  one  thing  ;  its  internal  char- 
acter quite  another  thing.  A  man  may  conscientiously  do  that 
which  is  injurious  in  its  tendency;  as,  on  the  other  hand,  he  may, 
with  a  bad  motive,  do  that  which  is  innocent  or  beneficial  in  its 
tendency." 

Such  language  necessarily  supposes  that  right  means  benefi- 
cial, and  wrong,  injurious.  No  moral  distinction  is  admitted, 
but  only  a  difference  as  expedient  or  inexpedient.  A  thing  being 
injurious  may  indeed  be  one  reason  why  it  would  be  wrong  in 
any  one  voluntarily  to  do  it,  but  to  merge  the  distinction  of  right 
and  wrong  into  that  of  expedient  and  inexpedient,  subverts  the 
foundation  of  morals  and  religion,  and  when  logically  carried 
out,  leads  to  the  greatest  enormities.  According  to  the  doctrine 
of  this  letter,  no  matter  what  "  the  external  character  of  an  act" 
may  be,  it  is  innocent  if  done  conscientiously  or  from  benevo- 
lent motiA^es.  If  this  is  so,  then  Paul  was  not  to  blame  for  per- 
secuting the  church,  because  he  verily  believed  he  was  doing 
God  service  ;  he  had  no  doubt  that  the  interests  of  truth,  of  his 
nation,  and  of  the  world  were  involved  in  putting  down  what 
he  regarded  as  an  imposture.  This  doctrine  exculpates  all  per- 
secutors and  inquisitors,  the  exterminators  of  the  Waldenses 
and  of  the  Peruvians,  provided  only  they  were  conscientious, 
which  was,  as  it  regards  many  of  them,  no  doubt  the  case.  It 
is  vain  to  argue  this  matter.  No  man  can  look  the  naked  pro- 
position in  the  face,  that  every  thing  is  innocent  to  him  who 


426      KESPONSIBILITIES    OF   BOARDS    OF    MISSIONS 

thinks  it  to  be  right.  The  very  essence  of  the  guilt  of  men,  the 
very  sum  of  their  depravity,  is  their  thinking  good  evil  and  evil 
good.  The  Bible  holds  up  to  us  coincidence  of  moral  judg- 
ment with  God  as  the  ideal  of  perfection,  and  as  the  clearest 
evidence  of  alienation  from  him  that  we  regard  that  to  be  right 
which  he  abhors.  If  an  act  may  be  externally  wrong  and  in- 
ternally right,  then  the  assassination  of  Henry  IV.,  from  an  earn- 
est desire  to  rid  the  world  of  an  evil,  was  right  ;  and  then  the 
doctrine  that  the  end  sanctifies  the  means,  must,  in  all  its  length 
and  breadth,  be  admitted.  The  motive  of  an  action  is  deter- 
mined by  the  end  in  view.  If  that  end  be  the  good  of  society, 
the  motive  is  benevolent,  and  no  matter  what  the  nature  of  the 
act,  the  agent  stands  acquitted  in  the  sight  of  Grod,  because  he  is 
governed  by  benevolent  motives.  This  is  radically  and  lament- 
ably false  morality.  No  man  can  sin  innocently.  No  man  stands 
acquitted  in  the  sight  of  God  for  doing  what  God  forbids.  If 
slaveholding  is  sinful,  all  slaveholders  are  sinners.  If  persecu- 
tion is  wicked,  all  persecutors  are  without  excuse.  If  selling 
ardent  spirits  is  wrong  now,  the  good  men  who  formerly  en- 
gaged in  the  traffic  sinned  against  God.  The  reason  of  this  is 
plain.  All  moral  truths  contain  their  own  evidence  ;  evidence 
which  no  man  can  innocently  reject.  How  preposterous  would 
it  be  for  men  to  talk  of  committing  theft,  murder,  or  drunken- 
ness from  benevolent  motives.  No  man  can  screen  iiimself  at 
a  human  tribunal,  much  less  at  the  bar  of  God,  behind  his  mo- 
tives. It  is  indeed  a  plain  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  and  a  plain 
principle  of  morals,  that  some  sins,  by  reason  of  several  aggrava- 
tions, are  more  heinous  in  the  sight  of  God  than  others.  But 
it  remains  true  nevertheless,  that  every  sin  deserves  God's 
wrath  and  curse,  both  in  this  life  and  in  that  which  is  to  come. 
The  crimes  of  the  heathen  committed  in  their  blindness,  do  not 
lose  their  nature  as  sins,  though  it  will  be  far  more  tolerable  in 
the  day  of  judgment  for  them,  than  for  many  Christians.  That 
sins  may  be  greatly  aggravated  by  the  circumstances  under 
which  they  arc  committed,  and  especially  by  the  light  enjoyed 
by  the  transgressor,  is  very  different  from  the  doctrine  which 
holds  a  man  innocent  who  conscientiously  commits  sin,  or  which 
teaches  that  a  thing  may  be  externally  wrong  and  internally 
right. 

Another  evidence  of  the  false  philosophy  of  this  letter,  is  found 


AS   TO  MISSIONARIES   AND   MISSION   CHURCHES.      427 

ia  the  manner  in  which  it  speaks  of  the  conduct  of  our  Lord  and 
his  apostles  in  relation  to  slavery.  It  represents  them  as  abstain- 
ing from  the  denunciation  of  sin,  from  motives  of  expediency. 
Grod,  however,  hates,  and  everywhere,  and  at  all  times,  denounces 
all  sin.  Why  were  idolatry  and  covetousness  denounced  .?  They 
were  far  more  prevalent  than  slaveholding  ;  they  were  more  in- 
fluential, and  more  deeply  rooted,  and  yet  no  considerations  of 
expediency  constrained  the  apostles  to  silence  regarding  them. 
It  is  an  impeachment  of  the  integrity  of  any  teacher  of  morality 
to  say  that  he  avoided  all  denunciation  of  theft,  murder,  and 
adultery,  from  motives  of  expediency.  No  one  can  think,  with- 
out a  shudder,  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  giving  directions  to 
thieves  and  drunkards  how  to  treat  their  associates  or  victims. 
This  doctrine  that  men's  conduct,  in  reference  to  moral  questions, 
may  be  regulated  by  expediency,  overlooks  all  moral  distinctions. 
With  regard  to  things  indifferent,  expediency  is  a  very  proper 
guide — but  no  truth  can  be  plainer  than  that  all  sin  should  be 
everywhere  denounced,  and  immediately  forsaken. 

To  the  same  false  principle  are  to  be  referred  all  the  directions 
which  this  letter  gives  to  the  missionaries.  Slaveholding  is  sinful, 
but  you  need  not  say  so.  You  may  choose  your  time.  You  may 
wait  for  suitable  occasions.  You  may  do  it  indirectly,  when  it 
would  not  answer  to  do  it  plainly.  That  all  this  is  wrong  is  obvi- 
ous. No  such  directions  could  be  given  with  regard  to  any  other 
sin.  It  would  not  do  to  say  to  the  missionaries,  you  may  take 
your  time  to  denounce  robbery  and  murder.  You  may  do  it 
indirectly,  &c.,  &c.  The  public  are  not  so  entirely  bhnded  by  a 
false  philosophy,  as  not  to  see  this  would  be  wrong.  And  we  can- 
not but  hope  it  may  be  given  to  the  Prudential  Committee,  to  see 
that  there  is  something  amiss  in  their  theory.  Either  slavehold- 
ing is  not  a  sin,  or  this  is  not  the  way  to  treat  it. 

From  this  same  doctrine  of  expediency,  from  the  doctrine  that 
a  thing  may  be  externally  wrong  and  internally  right,  flows  the 
inquisitorial  treatment  of  slaveholding  converts  here  recommend- 
ed ;  this  prying  into  their  motives  in  owning  slaves,  to  determine 
whether  they  are  selfish  or  benevolent.  Is  this  the  course  pursued 
with  regard  to  lying  and  theft  .^  Is  the  poor  convert  cross- 
questioned  as  to  his  motive  in  cheating  and  stealing  ?  We  trow 
not.  And  why  not  ?  Simply  because  every  one  knows  that 
cheating  and   slaveholding   belong  to  very  different  categories. 


428       RESPONSIBILITIES    OF    BOARDS    OF    MISSIONS 

Lying  and  theft  are  sinful  in  themselves,  and  it  matters  not  with 
what  motives  they  are  committed.  If  slaveholding  is  sinful,  there 
is  no  need  to  enquire  into  a  man's  motives  in  sinning. 

4.  Our  fourth  ohjection  to  this  letter  is  its  want  of  discrimina- 
tion and  clearness.  The  writer  gives  us  no  distinct  idea  of  what 
it  is  he  condemns.  He  condemns  slavery,  but  he  does  not  tell  us 
what  he  means  by  it.  He  seems  to  speak  of  it  as  a  system  which 
keeps  men  in  degradation,  which  denies  to  them  a  just  compen- 
sation for  labor  ;  which  disregards  their  rights  as  husbands  and 
parents  ;  which  forbids  their  instruction,  and  debars  them  from 
access  to  the  word  of  Grod.  He  sees,  as  every  one  else  sees,  that 
a  system  which  does  all  this,  must  be  sinful.  It  is  a  system  which 
ought  not  to  be  dallied  with,  or  assaulted  indirectly,  but  should 
be  openly  denounced,  and  immediately  abandoned  by  every  good 
man.  But  these  things  are  not  slavery.  They  do  not  enter  into 
its  definition.  It  may,  and  in  many  cases  does  exist  without  one 
of  these  circumstances.  Slavery  is  involuntary  servitude.  And 
servitude  is  the  obligation  to  serve.  This  is  aU  that  is  essential 
to  slavery.  It  supposes  the  right  on  the  part  of  the  master  to 
the  service  of  the  slave,  without  his  consent.  In  every  country 
where  slavery  prevails  there  are.  two  sets  of  laws  relating 
to  it.  The  one  designed  to  enforce  this  right  of  the  master,  to 
render  it  profitable,  and  to  perpetuate  it.  The  other  intended  to 
protect  the  slave.  These  laws  vary  continually.  They  were  far 
more  unjust  in  the  French  West  India  Islands  than  in  the  British, 
and  more  unjust  in  the  British  than  in  the  Spanish.  Laws  made 
by  slaveholders,  and  intended  to  enforce,  and  to  render  secure 
and  profitable  their  right  to  the  service  of  their  slaves,  are  almost 
always  more  or  less  in  conflict  with  the  gospel.  So  is  all  class 
legislation  of  any  kind.  In  regard  to  these  laws,  it  is  the  busi- 
ness of  the  church,  by  her  instructions  and  discipline,  to  enforce 
such  as  are  good  and  such  as  are  indiiferent,  and  to  denounce 
such  as  are  wicked.  If  the  Koman  law  gave  the  power  of  life  and 
death  to  the  master,  he  was  none  the  less  a  murderer,  in  the 
sight  of  the  church,  if  he  maliciously  put  his  slave  to  death.  If 
American  law  gives  the  master  the  power  of  punishment,  he  is 
none  the  less  guilty  in  the  sight  of  the  church,  for  every  act  of 
cruelty.  If  the  law  allows  the  master  to  keep  back  from  his 
slaves  a  due  recompense  for  their  labor  ;  to  debar  them  access  to 
the  means  of  grace,  and  especially  from  the  word  of  God  ;  he  is 
not  the  less  accountable  to  the  church  for  every  violation  of  the 


AS    TO    MISSIONARIES    AND    MISSION    CHURCHES.    429 

law  of  justice  and  mercy.  Human  laws  allow  to  parents  and 
husbands  a  })Ower  which  they  may  dreadfully  abuse.  Yet  the 
possession  of  that  power  is  not  itself  sinful. 

What  we  complain  of  is,  that  this  letter  makes  no  discrimina- 
tion between  slavery  and  slave  laws  ;  between  the  possession  of 
a  master's  power  and  the  abuse  of  that  power.  The  relation  it- 
self is  pronounced  "  unnatural  and  sinful,"  when  all  the  arguments 
tend  to  prove  not  the  relation,  but  the  abuse  of  it  to  be  wrong. 
Christ  and  his  apostles  evidently  regarded  the  possession  of  des- 
jjotic  power,  whether  in  the  state  or  the  family,  a  matter  of 
indifference,  i.  e.,  neither  right  nor  wrong  in  its  own  nature,  but 
the  becoming  one  or  the  other  according  to  circumstances.  It 
was  therefore  not  despotism  in  the  state,  or  slaveholding  in  the 
family,  which  they  condemned,  but  the  wrong  use  of  the  author- 
ity of  the  despot  or  the  master. 

There  is  the  same  confusion  with  regard  to  the  word  "  proper- 
ty." The  letter  says  the  converted  slaveholder  must  repudiate 
the  idea  of  having  a  right  of  property  in  a  human  being.  Every- 
thing done  on  the  assumption  of  such  a  right,  is  declared  to  be  a 
proper  matter  for  discipline.  But  not  one  word  is  said  to  inform 
us  what  this  right  of  property  is.  Abolitionists  say  it  is  the 
right  to  make  a  man  a  thing,  or  a  brute.  If  this  is  what  is 
meant,  will  any  one  venture  to  say  that  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
from  motives  of  expediency,  failed  to  denounce  so  great  a  sin  as 
that  ?  Neither  lying  nor  stealing  could  be  one-half  so  offensive 
to  Grod,  as  such  an  insult  and  degradation  put  upon  his  own 
image.  No  slave  laws,  however  atrocious,  ever  proceeded  on  the 
assumption  that  a  slave  was  not  a  rational  being,  of  the  same 
nature  with  his  master.  If  this  is  what  the  letter  means  by  the 
right  of  property,  it  is  a  mere  chimera.  The  only  sense  in  which 
one  man  can  have  property  in  another,  is  in  having  a  right  to  his 
services.  In  this  sense  the  state  has  the  right  of  property  in  her 
citizens,  a  right  which  she  often  presses  further  than  the  slave- 
holder can  press  his  power,  when  she  forces  men  into  her  armies 
and  navies,  and  sends  them  to  die  by  pestilence  or  the  sword. 

These  are  subjects  which  we  have  repeatedly  discussed  at 
length,  in  the  pages  of  this  journal.  We  have  no  desire  to  travel 
again  over  the  same  ground.  We  have  said  enough  to  show  the 
lamentable  consequences  of  not  discriminating  things  that  differ  ; 
of  confounding  things  lawful  or  indifferent,  with  things  in  their 
own  nature  sinful.     If  the  noble  letters  written  by  the  Cherokee 


430      RESPONSIBILITIES    OF    BOARDS    OF   MISSIONS 

and  Choctaw  missionaries,  failed  to  open  the  eyes  of  the  commit- 
tee to  this  distinction,  we  despair  of  being  able  to  do  it.  Those 
letters  show  that  the  missions  are  faithful  in  this  whole  matter  ; 
dealing  with  the  subject  just  as  the  Scriptures  treat  it,  condemn- 
ing all  that  is  sinful,  and  requiring  all  that  justice  or  love  demand, 
abstaining  only  from  pronouncing,  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  and 
contrary  to  the  judgment  of  nine-tenths  of  the  people  of  God  in 
all  ages,  "  the  relation  itself  to  be  unnatural  and  sinful." 

There  are  several  perfectly  distinct  and  intelligible  views  of 
this  whole  subject  of  slavery,  and  of  the  proper  method  of  deal- 
ing with  it.  The  first  is,  that  it  is  a  good  and  desirable  institu- 
tion ;  a  state  of  the  laboring  population,  which,  upon  the  whole, 
is  preferable  to  any  other.  Appropriate  means  ought,  therefore, 
to  be  taken  to  perpetuate  and  extend  it.  As,  however,  slavery 
is  founded  on  the  inferiority  of  one  class  of  society  to  another, 
it  cannot  continue  to  exist  unless  that  inferiority  be  perpetuated. 
Consequently,  according  to  this  view,  slaves  ought  to  be  debarred 
from  the  means  of  improvement,  and  kept  in  a  condition  of  in- 
tellectual and  social  debasement.  This  is  the  fanatical  pro- 
slavery  doctrine.  It  has  been  repudiated  by  all  the  great  men  of 
the  South  in  the  earlier  periods  of  our  history,  and  is  probably 
not  held  by  one  educated  man  in  a  hundred,  perhaps  not  by  one 
in  a  thousand,  in  our  slaveholding  States. 

The  second  view  is,  that  the  relation  is  unnatural  and  sinful, 
and  should,  therefore,  be  immediately  and  universally  renounced, 
just  like  any  other  sin,  drunkenness,  lying,  or  theft.  This  is 
clear-headed,  and  straight-forward  abolitionism. 

The  third  is  the  scriptural  view.  Slaveholding,  according  to 
this  view,  belongs  to  the  class  of  things  indifferent,  of  things 
neither  forbidden  nor  commanded  in  the  word  of  Grod,  which  are 
right  or  wrong,  according  to  circumstances.  It  is  like  despotism 
in  the  state.  A  man  may  possess  despotic  power  in  the  state, 
power  giving  him  authority  over  the  persons  and  property  of  his 
fellow-men.  The  abuse  of  such  power  is  a  great  sin.  To  employ 
it  with  the  view  of  perpetuating  it,  by  keeping  those  under  its 
control  in  a  state  of  ignorance  or  debasement,  is  one  of  the 
greatest  acts  of  injustice  that  one  man  can  commit  towards  his 
fellows.  But  if  that  power  be  used  justly  and  benevolently,  its 
possession  is  no  sin,  and  the  despot  may  be  one  of  the  greatest 
benefactors  of  his  race.  Despotism,  however,  is  not  a  desirable 
form  of  government ;  no  means,  therefore,  ought  to  be  employed 


AS    TO    MISSIONARIES    AND    MISSION    CHURCHES.    431 

to  perpetuate  it.  It  is  adapted  only  to  a  low  state  of  civilization, 
and  must  disappear  as  the  mass  of  the  people  increase  in  intelli- 
gence, property,  and  virtuous  self-control.  It  is  just  so  with 
slavery  or  domestic  despotism.  A  man  may  be  a  slaveholder 
without  any  impeachment  of  his  Christian  character.  The  rela- 
tion in  which  he  stands  to  his  slaves  is  not  a  sinful  one.  It  is 
not  forbidden  in  the  word  of  God.  It  may  be  the  most  appro- 
priate and  natural  relation  in  which  the  parties  can  stand  to 
each  other.  Just  as  despotism,  in  some  circumstances,  is  the 
very  best  form  of  government.  But  such  slaveholder  is  bound 
to  use  his  power  as  a  Christian,  just  as  a  parent  or  husband  is 
bound  to  use  his  authority  ;  or  a  rich  man  his  wealth.  He  must 
act  in  obedience  to  the  gospel,  which  teaches  that  the  laborer  is 
worthy  of  his  hire,  and  that  a  fair  compensation  must,  in  all 
cases,  be  made  to  him  ;  which  forbids  the  separation  of  those 
whom  Grod  has  joined  in  marriage  ;  which  requires  all  appro- 
priate means  to  be  used  for  the  intellectual  and  moral  improve- 
ment of  our  fellow-men,  and  especially  that  free  access  should 
be  allowed  them  to  the  word  of  God,  and  to  all  the  means  of 
grace.  This  is  the  gospel  method  of  dealing  with  slavery.  If  this 
method  be  adopted,  the  inferiority  of  the  one  class  to  the  other, 
on  which  slavery  is  founded,  will  gradually  disappear,  and  the 
whole  system  be  peacefully  and  healthfully  abolished.  This  is  the 
way  in  which  the  gospel  has  already  banished  domestic  slavery  from 
a  large  part  of  the  Christian  world.  There  are  some  men  who  are 
so  blind  they  cannot  see,  or  so  wicked  they  will  not  acknowledge, 
the  difference  between  this  view  and  the  first  above  mentioned. 

An  unsuccessful  attempt  is  sometimes  made,  as  in  this  letter 
of  Mr.  Treat's,  to  find  some  middle  ground  between  abolitionism, 
and  what  we  have  ventured  to  designate  as  the  scriptural  view  of 
this  subject.  The  principles  of  the  abolitionists  are  admitted, 
but  their  conclusions  are  denied  or  modified.  The  system  is 
sinful,  but  those  who  practise  it  may  be  innocent.  The  relation 
is  wrong,  but  it  need  not  be  immediately  abandoned.  Being 
sinful,  it  affords  prima  facie  evidence  that  those  who  are  con- 
cerned with  it,  are  not  Christians.  Before  they  can  be  properly 
recognized  as  such,  they  must  prove  they  are  influenced  by  be- 
nevolent motives,  in  doing  what  is  "  unnatural  and  sinful." 

In  all  we  have  now  written,  we  have  been  influenced  by  the 
most  friendly  feelings  towards  the  American  Board.  We  believe 
it  has  been  an  incalculable  blessing  to  this  country,  and  to  the 


432      RESPONSIBILITIES    OF    BOARDS    OF   MISSIONS. 

heathen  world.  We  regard  the  interests  of  the  Redeemer's  king- 
dom as  deeply  involved  in  its  prosperity.  We  think  all  Chris- 
tians are  bound  to  pray  for  its  success,  to  avoid  everything  that 
can  injuriously  aflect  it,  and  to  promote  its  efficiency,  as  God 
may  give  them  the  ability  and.  occasion.  We  believe  that  the 
misapprehension,  which  in  our  judgment,  characterizes  the  Re- 
port of  the  Prudential  Committee,  is  perfectly  natural,  and 
entirely  consistent  with  the  purest  intentions  on  their  part.  We 
believe,  further,  that  the  correction  of  that  misapprehension,  and 
the  adoption  of  the  principles  we  have  endeavored  to  sustain  in 
this  review,  so  far  from  impeding  their  operations,  would  tend 
directly  to  disembarrass  and  facilitate  them.  The  committee  say 
they  are  directly  responsible  for  the  teaching  of  the  missionaries. 
They  must,  therefore,  have  the  right  to  know  what  it  is,  to  judge 
and  to  direct  it.  The  consequence  is,  their  conscience  is  always 
on  the  alert.  The  opinions  of  the  few  gentlemen  in  Boston  as 
to  what  is,  and  what  is  not,  the  faith  and  discipline  of  the 
church,  become  the  rule  by  which  all  missionaries  are  to  conduct 
their  teaching,  subject,  indeed,  to  the  revision  of  the  Board. 
Hence,  if  the  missionaries  teach  that  slavery  is  not  in  itself 
sinful,  and  that  slaveholding  is  not  prima  facie  evidence  of  an 
imconverted  state,  and  the  committee  think  otherAvise,  and  that 
the  churches  agree  with  them,  they  are  bound  to  require  the 
missionaries  to  conform  to  their  views.  According  to  the  other 
view  of  the  matter,  the  committee  are  not  directly  responsible 
for  the  teaching  of  the  missionaries.  That  responsibility  rests  on 
the  ecclesiastical  body  to  which  they  belong.  To  that  body, 
therefore,  and  not  to  the  committee,  belongs  the  right  of  inquiry, 
judgment,  and  direction.  Consequently,  so  long  as  the  denomi- 
nation, with  which  a  missionary  is  connected,  approves  of  any 
doctrine  or  rule  of  discipline,  the  committee  cannot  interfere.  If, 
for  example,  missionaries  connected  with  the  Presbyterian  or 
Dutch  church,  with  the  approbation  of  those  churches,  admit 
slaveholders  to  the  communion,  the  committee  are  relieved  from 
all  responsibility.  On  the  other  hand,  if  missionaries  connected 
with  the  Congregationalists,  with  the  approbation  of  those  enti- 
tled to  judge,  hold  and  teach  that  slaveholders  should  not  be 
received,  the  committee  are  bound  to  acquiesce,  as  to  the  mission 
churches  under  Congregational  control.  By  the  Board  and  the 
churches  keeping  thus,  in  their  separate  spheres,  we  see  not  why 
there  need  be  any  collision  between  them. 


XIIL 

GOD    IN    CHRIST.^ 

The  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  Incarnation,  and  Atonement,  are 
the  common  property  of  Christians.  They  belong  to  no  sect  and 
to  no  country.  Any  assault  upon  them,  any  explanation  or  de- 
fence of  them,  is  matter  of  general  interest.  These  doctrines  are 
discussed  in  the  volume  now  before  us.  It  is  addressed,  there- 
fore, to  the  whole  Christian  public,  and  not  exclusively  to  New 
England.  On  this  account  we  are  disposed  to  call  the  attention 
of  our  readers  to  its  contents.  We  are  the  more  inclined  to  take 
this  course,  because  the  character  of  the  work,  and  the  peculiar 
circumstances  of  its  origin,  are  likely  to  secure  for  it  an  extensive 
circulation.  We  hardly  think,  indeed,  that  it  will  produce  the 
sensation  which  many  seem  to  expect.  Dr.  Bushnell  says  :  "  Some 
persons  anticipate,  in  the  publication  of  these  '  Discourses/  the 
opening  of  another  great  religious  controversy.'^  This  expecta- 
tion he  does  not  himself  entertain,  because  he  says,  "  I  am  quite 
resolved  that  I  will  be  drawn  into  no  reply,  unless  there  is  pro- 
duced against  me  some  argument  of  so  great  force,  that  I  feel 
myself  required,  out  of  simple  duty  to  the  truth,  either  to  sur- 
render or  to  make  important  modifications  in  the  views  I  have 
advanced.  I  anticipate,  of  course,  no  such  necessity,  though  I 
do  anticipate  that  arguments,  and  reviews,  very  much  in  the 
character  of  that  which  I  just  now  gave  myself,  will  be  advanced 
— such  as  will  show  off  my  absurdities  in  a  very  glaring  light,  and 
such  as  many  persons  of  acknowledged  character  will  accept  with 
applause,  as  conclusive,  or  even  explosive  refutations.     Therefore 

'  God  in  Christ ;  Three  Discourses  delivered  at  New  Haven,  Cambridge,  and  An- 
dover  ;  with  a  preliminary  Dissertation  on  Language.  By  Horace  Bushnell.  Hart- 
ford ;  Brown  &  Parsons.     1849.     pp.  ,356. — Puinceton  Review,  April,  1849. 

28 


484  GOD    IN     CHRIST. 

I  advertise  it  beforehand,  to  prevent  a  misconstruction  of  my 
silence,  that  I  am  silenced  now,  on  the  publication  of  my  volume." 
This  passage  clearly  indicates  that  an  effect  is  expected  from 
these  discourses,  such  as  few  sermons  have  ever  produced.  We 
are  disposed  to  doubt  as  to  this  point.  We  should  be  sorry  to 
think  that  the  public  mind  is  in  such  an  unhealthy  state  as  to 
be  much  affected  by  any  thing  contained  in  this  volume.  Every 
thing  from  Dr.  Bushuell  has  indeed  a  certain  kind  of  power.  His 
vigorous  imagination,  and  his  adventurous  style,  cannot  fail  to 
command  attention.  There  is  in  this  book  a  great  deal  of  truth 
pungently  presented  ;  and  there  are  passages  of  exquisite  beauty 
of  thought  and  expression.  Still,  v/ith  reverence  be  it  spoken, 
we  think  the  book  a  failure.  In  the  first  place,  it  settles  nothing. 
It  overturnf^,  but  it  does  not  erect.  Men  do  not  like  to  be  house- 
less ;  much  less  do  they  like  to  have  the  doctrines  which  over- 
hang and  surround  their  souls  as  a  dwelling  and  a  refuge,  pulled 
to  pieces,  that  they  may  sit  sentimentally  on  the  ruins.  If  Dr. 
Bushnell  takes  from  us  our  God  and  our  Redeemer,  he  is  bound 
to  provide  some  adequate  substitute.  He  has  done  no  such 
thing.  He  rejects  the  old  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  and  Incarna- 
tion ;  but  he  has  produced  no  other  intelligible  doctrine.  He  has 
not  thought  himself  through.  He  is  only  half  out  of  the  shell. 
And  therefore  his  attempt  to  soar  is  premature.  He  rejects  the 
doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God.  He  says  :  "  It  seems  to 
be  agreed  by  the  orthodox,  that  there  are  three  persons,  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  divine  nature."  This  he  denies, 
and  argues  against.  P.  130-136.  In  opposition  to  such  a 
Trinity,  he  presents  and  urges  the  doctrine  of  a  historical  Trini- 
ty, a  threefold  revelation  of  God.  But  then,  the  old  house 
down,  and  the  new  not  keeping  out  the  rain,  and  tottering  under 
even  the  builder's  solitary  tread,  he  tries  (though  too  late,  except 
as  an  acknowledgment  of  failure)  to  re-construct  the  old.  What 
Trinitarian  wishes  more,  or  can  say  more  than  Dr.  Bushnell  sayi; 
on  p.  174  :  "  Neither  is  it  any  so  great  wisdom,  as  many  theolo- 
gians appear  to  fancy,  to  object  to  the  word  person;  for,  if  any 
thing  is  clear,  it  is  that  the  Three  of  Scripture  do  appear  under 
the  grammatic  forms  which  are  appropriate  to  person— I,  Thou, 
He,  We,  and  They  ;  and,  if  it  be  so,  I  really  do  not  perceive  the 
veiy  great  license  taken  by  our  theology,  when  they  are  called 
three  persons.     Besides,  we  practically  need,  for  our  own  sake,  to 


GOD    IN     CHRIST.  435 

set  them  out  as  three  persons  before  us,  acting  relatively  towards 
each  other,  in  order  to  ascend  into  the  liveliest,  fullest  realization 
of  God.  We  only  need  to  abstain  from  assigning  to  these  divine 
persons  an  interior,  metaphysical  nature,  which  we  are  nowise  able 
to  investigate,  and  which  we  may  positively  know  to  contradict 
the  real  unity  of  God."  To  all  this  we  say.  Amen.  Then  what 
becomes  of  his  arguments  against  three  persons  in  the  divine 
nature  '^  What  becomes  of  his  cheating  mirage  of  a  Trinity — a 
trinity  of  revelations  ?  He  takes  away  the  doctrine  on  which 
the  spiritual  life  of  every  Christian  rests,  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,  and  gives  us  "  a  God  historically  three  ;"  and  then 
admits  that  the  Scriptures  teach,  and  that  we  need,  a  God  per- 
sonally three  !  Dr.  Bushnell  cannot  reasonably  expect  to  convert 
others  until  he  has  completed  the  conversion  of  himself. 

This  half-ism  is  manifested  also  in  what  he  says  of  the  person 
of  Christ,  p.  158-167.  He  presents  all  the  usual  objections 
against  the  assumption  of  a  two-fold  nature  in  the  Kedeemer. 
He  insists  that  it  is  God  that  appears  under  the  limitations  of 
humanity,  and  that  of  the  divine  nature  is  to  be  predicated  the 
ignorance,  subordination,  and  suffering  ascribed  to  Christ.  He 
commits  himself  fully  to  the  Apollinarian  view  of  Christ's  per- 
son. And  then  his  heart  or  his  conscience  smites  him.  His 
unsteady  head  again  reels,  and  he  gives  it  all  uj).  When  cate- 
gorically demanded,  whether  he  renounces  the  divine  and  life- 
giving  doctrine  of  God  and  man,  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one 
person,  he  falters,  and  says  :  "  It  maybe  imagined  that  I  intend, 
in  holding  this  view  of  the  incarnation,  or  of  the  person  of  Christ, 
to  deny  that  he  had  a  human  soul,  or  any  thing  human  but  a 
human  body  :  I  only  deny  that  his  human  soul,  or  nature,  is  to  be 
spoken  of,  or  looked  upon,  as  having  a  distinct  subsistence."  P. 
168.  But  this  we  all  deny.  Who  ever  heard  of  "  two  distinct 
subsistences"  in  Christ  ?  If  Dr.  Bushnell  has  got  no  furtlier 
than  this,  he  has  not  got  beyond  his  Catechism.  For  it  is  there 
taught  there  is  but  one  subsistence,  one  suppositum  inteUigens, 
one  person  in  Christ.  He  returns,  however,  to  his  sMojAov,  to  his 
Christ  without  a  soul,  a  Christ  who  is  no  Christ,  almost  on  the 
next  page.  We  do  not  gain  any  thing,  he  says,  "  by  supposing  a 
distinct  human  soul  in  the  person  of  Christ,  connecting  itself 
with  what  are  called  the  humanities  of  Christ.  Of  what  so  great 
consequence  to  us  are  the  humanities  of  a  mere  human  soul." 


436  GOD    IN    CHRIST, 

P.  156.  This  saying  and  unsaying  betrays  a  man  who  is  not  sure 
of  his  ground.  People  will  never  confide  in  a  leader  who  does 
not  confide  in  himself.  Dr.  Bushnell  has  undertaken  a  task  for 
which  he  is  entirely  incompetent.  He  has  not  the  learning,  the 
knowledge  of  opinions  or  forms  of  doctrine  ;  nor  has  he  the  philo- 
sophical culture,  nor  the  constructive  intellect,  required  to  project 
a  consistent  and  comprehensive  theory  on  the  great  themes  ol 
God,  the  Incarnation,  and  Redemption.  We  say  this  with  no 
disrespect.  We  would  say  it  with  tenfold  readiness  of  ourselves. 
We  have  the  advantage  of  our  author,  however,  in  having  sense 
enough  to  know  that  our  sphere  is  a  much  humbler  one.  Machia- 
velli  was  accustomed  to  say,  there  are  three  classes  of  men  :  one 
who  see  things  in  their  own  light  ;  another  who  see  them  when 
they  are  shown  ;  and  a  third  who  cannot  see  them  even  then. 
We  invite  Dr.  Bushnell  to  resume  his  place  with  us,  in  the  second 
class.  By  a  just  judgment  of  God,  those  who  uncalled  aspire  to 
the  first,  lapse  into  the  third. 

The  characteristic,  to  which  we  have  referred,  is  not  so  strongly 
marked  in  the  discourse  on  the  Atonement.  Here,  alas  !  the  writer 
has  been  able  to  emancipate  himself  more  completely  from  the 
teachings  of  the  nursery,  the  Bible,  and  the  Spirit.  Yet  even 
here,  there  is  that  yearning  after  the  old  and  scriptural,  that  de- 
sire to  save  something  from  the  wreck  of  his  former  faith,  which 
excites  respectful  commiseration.  There  are  but  three  radical 
views  of  the  Atonement,  properly  so  called.  The  scriptural  doc- 
trine, which  represents  it  as  a  real  propitiation  ;  the  governmental 
view,  which  makes  it  a  method  of  teaching  symbolically  the 
justice  of  God  ;  the  Socinian  view,  which  regards  it  as  designed 
to  produce  a  subjective  effect,  to  impress  men  with  a  sense  of 
God's  love,  &c.  Dr.  Bushnell  spurns  the  first,  rejects  the  second, 
and  adopts  the  third.  But  then  he  finds  that  he  has  lost  every 
thing  worth  retaining,  and  therefore  endeavors  to  regain  the  first 
which  he  calls  the  "Altar view."  His  "constructive  logic"  will 
not  allow  his  holding  it  as  truth,  he  therefore  endeavors  to  hold 
it  as  "  form."  He  cannot  retain  it  as  doctrine,  but  he  clings  to  it 
as  "  art."  He  admits  that  it  is  the  scriptural  view  ;  that  the 
whole  church  has  adhered  to  it  as  to  the  source  of  life,  and  that 
it  is  the  only  effective  view.  "  Christ,"  he  says,  "  is  a  power  for 
the  moral  renovation  of  the  world,  and  as  such  is  measured  by 
what  he  expresses."     How  is  this  renovation  effected  ?     Not  by 


GOD    IN     CHKIST.  437 

his  offering  himself  as  a  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  thus  re- 
conciling us  to  God,  and  procuring  for  us  the  git't  of  the  Holy- 
Ghost,  but  "  by  his  obedience,  by  the  expense  and  pains-taking 
of  his  suffering  life,  by  yielding  up  his  own  sacred  person  to  die, 
he  has  produced  in  us  a  sense  of  the  eternal  sanctity  of  God's 
law  that  was  neefiful  to  prevent  the  growth  of  license  or  of  in- 
difference and  insensibility  to  religious  obligations,  such  as  must 
be  incurred,  if  the  exactness  and  rigor  of  a  law  system  were 
wholly  dissipated  by  offers  of  pardon  grounded  in  mere  leniency." 
This  is  really  what  Christ  does.  This  is  his  atoning  work.  He 
produces  a  sense  of  the  sanctity  of  the  law  in  us.  This  is  full 
out  the  Socinian  view  of  the  doctrine.  But,  says  Dr.  Bushnell, 
it  has  no  power  in  this  abstract  form.  "  We  must  transfer  this 
subjective  state  or  impression,  this  ground  of  justification,  and 
produce  it  outwardly,  if  possible,  in  some  objective  form  ;  as  if  it 
had  some  effect  on  the  law  or  on  God.  The  Jew  had  done  this 
before  us,  and  we  follow  him  ;  representing  Christ  as  our  sacri- 
fice, sin-offering,  atonement,  sprinkling  of  blood.  *  *  * 
These  forms  are  the  objective  equivalents  of  our  subjective  im- 
pressions. Indeed,  our  impressions  have  their  life  and  power  in 
and  under  these  forms.  Neither  let  it  be  imagined  that  we  only 
happen  to  seize  upon  these  images  of  sacrifice,  atonement,  and 
blood,  because  they  are  at  hand.  They  are  prepared,  as  God's 
form  of  art,  for  the  representation  of  Christ  and  his  work  ;  and 
if  we  refuse  to  let  him  pass  into  this  form,  we  have  no  mould  of 
thought  which  can  fitly  represent  him.  And  when  he  is  thus  rep- 
resented, we  are  to  understand  that  he  is  our  sacrifice  and  atone- 
ment, that  by  his  blood  we  have  remission,  not  in  any  speculative 
sense,  but  as  in  art."  P.  254.  The  plain  meaning  of  this  is  ; 
that  the  actual  thing  done  is  the  production  of  a  certain  subjective 
change,  or  impression  in  us.  This  impression  cannot  be  produced 
in  any  way  so  effectively  as  by  what  Christ  has  done.  As  a  work 
of  art  produces  an  impression  more  powerful  than  a  formula  ;  so 
Christ  viewed  as  a  sacrifice,  as  a  ransom,  as  a  propitiation,  produ- 
ces the  impression  of  the  sanctity  of  the  law  more  powerfully  than 
any  didactic  statement  of  its  holiness  could  do.  It  is  in  this 
"  artistic"  form  that  the  truth  is  effectually  conveyed  to  the 
mind.  This  mode  is  admitted  to  be  essential.  Vicarious  atone- 
ment, sacrifice,  sin-offering,  propitiation  is  declared  to  be  "  the 
Divine  Fokm  of  Christianity,  in  distinction  from  all  others,  and 


438  GOD     IN    CHRIST. 

is,  in  that  view,  substantial  to  it,  or  consubstantial  with  it."  "It 
is  obvious,"  he  adds,  "  that  all  the  most  earnest  Christian  feelings 
of  the  apostles  are  collected  round  this  objective  representa- 
tion, the  vicarious  sacrifice  of  Christ,  for  the  sins  of  the  world. 
They  speak  of  it,  not  casually  '••■  *  *  but  systematically, 
they  live  in  it,  their  Christian  feeling  is  measured  by  it,  and 
shaped  in  the  mould  it  offers."  P.  259.  We  do  not  consider  this 
assertion  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  Christ's  being  presented  as 
a  sacrifice,  or  this  admission  that  his  work  is  set  forth  as  a  vica- 
rious atonement  in  the  Scriptures,  as  a  formal  retraction  or 
contradiction  of  the  author's  speculative  view  of  the  real  nature 
of  the  Redeemer's  work  ;  but  we  do  consider  it  sufficient  to  con- 
vince any  rational  man  that  that  speculative  view  is  an  inanity, 
a  lifeless  notion,  the  bloodless  progeny  of  a  poetic  imagination. 
Few  persons  will  believe  that  the  life  and  death  of  Christ  was  a 
liturgical  service,  a  chant  and  a  dirge,  to  move  "  the  world's 
mind  ;"  a  pageant  with  a  moral. 

These  discourses,  then,  unless  we  are  sadly  deceived  as  to  the 
amount  of  religious  knowledge  and  principles  in  the  public  mind, 
must  fail  to  produce  any  great  impression.  They  lack  the  power 
of  consistency.  They  say  and  unsay.  They  pull  down,  and  fail 
to  rebuild.  What  they  give  is  in  no  proportion  to  what  they 
take  away.  Besides  this,  their  power  is  greatly  impaired  by  the 
mixture  of  incongruous  elements  in  their  composition.  Ration- 
alism, Mysticism,  and  the  new  Philosophy  are  shaken  together, 
but  refuse  to  combine.  The  staple  of  the  book  is  rationalistic, 
the  other  elements  are  adventitious.  They  have  been  too  re- 
cently imbibed  to  be  properly  assimilated.  Either  of  these  ele- 
ments by  itself  has  an  aspect  more  or  less  respectable.  It  is  the 
combination  that  is  grotesque.  A  mystic  Rationalist  is  very 
much  like  a  Quaker  dragoon.  As,  however,  we  prefer  faith  with- 
out knowledge,  to  knowledge  without  faith,  we  think  the  mysti- 
cism an  improvement.  We  rejoice  to  see  that  Dr.  BushneU,  even 
at  the  expense  of  consistency  and  congruity,  sometimes  lapses 
into  the  passive  mood  of  a  recipient  of  truth  through  some  other 
channel  than  the  discursive  understanding. 

The  new  Philosopliy,  whicli  gleams  in  lurid  streaks  through 
this  volume,  is  still  more  out  of  place.  We  meet  here  and  there 
with  transcendental  principles  and  expressions,  which,  even  "the 
deepest  chemistry  of  thought"  (the  solvent  by  which  he  proposes 


GOD    IN    CHRIST.  439 

to  make  all  creeds  agree,  page  82),  must  fail  to  bring  into  com- 
bination witb  tbe  pervading  Theism  of  the  book.  The  presence 
of  all  these  incongruous  elements  in  these  discourses  is  patent  to 
every  one  who  reads  them.  In  our  subsequent  remarks  we  hope 
to  make  it  sufficiently  plain  even  to  those  who  read  only  this  re- 
view. Our  present  object  is  merely  to  indicate  this  characteristic 
as  a  source  of  weakness.  Had  Dr.  Bushnell  chosen  to  set  forth  a 
consistent  exhibition  of  all  that  the  mere  understandine;  has  to 
say  against  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  Incarnation,  and  Atone- 
ment ;  or  had  he  chosen  to  give  us  the  musings  of  a  poetical 
mystic  ;  or  had  he  even  endeavored  to  reproduce  the  system  of 
Hegel  or  Schleiermacher,  we  doubt  not  he  would  have  made  a 
book  of  considerable  power.  But  the  attempt  to  play  so  many 
incongruous  parts  at  one  time,  in  our  poor  judgment,  has  made 
the  failure  as  complete  as  it  was  inevitable. 

The  extravagance  of  the  book  is  another  of  its  characteristics 
which  must  prevent  its  having  much  effect.  Everything  perma- 
nently influential  is  moderate.  But  Dr.  Bushnell  is  extravagant 
even  to  a  paradox.  This  disposition  is  specially  manifested  in  the 
preliminary  dissertation  on  language,  and  in  the  discourse  on 
dogma.  There  is  nothing  either  new  or  objectionable,  in  his 
general  theory  of  language.  The  whole  absurdity  and  evil  lie  in 
the  extravagant  length  to  which  he  carries  his  principles.  It  is 
true,  for  example,  that  there  are  two  great  departments  of  lan- 
guage, the  physical  and  intellectual,  or  proper  and  figurative, 
the  language  of  sensation  and  the  language  of  thought.  It  is 
also  true  that  the  latter  is  to  a  great  extent  borrowed  from  the 
former.  It  is  true,  moreover,  that  the  language  of  thought  is  in 
a  measure  symbolical  and  suggestive,  and  therefore,  of  necessity 
more  or  less  inadequate.  No  words  can  possibly  answer  accu- 
rately to  the  multiplied,  diversified  and  variously  implicated  states 
of  mind  to  which  they  are  applied.  In  all  cases  it  is  only  an  ap- 
proximation. Something  is  always  left  unexpressed,  and  some- 
thing erroneous  always  is,  or  may  be,  included  in  the  terms  em- 
ployed. Dr.  Bushnell,  after  parading  these  principles  with  great 
circumstance,  presses  them  out  to  the  most  absurd  conclusions. 
Because  language  is  an  imperfect  vehicle  of  thought,  no  depend- 
ence can  be  placed  upon  it  ;  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  a 
scientific  tlieology ;  no  definite  doctrinal  propositions  ;  creeds  and 
catechisms  are  not  to  be  trusted  ;  no  author  can  be  properly 


440  GOD    IN    CHRIST. 

judged  by  his  words,  &c.,  &c.  See  pp.  72,  79,  82,  91,  et  seq., 
and  the  discourse  on  dogma  passim.  As  creeds  mean  nothing  or 
anything,  he  is  willing  to  sign  any  number  of  them.  He  has 
never  been  able,  he  says,  "  to  sympathise,  at  all,  with  the  abun- 
dant protesting  of  the  New  England  Unitarians  against  creeds. 
So  far  from  suffering  even  the  least  consciousness  of  restraint  or 
oppression  under  any  creed,  I  have  been  the  readier  to  accept  as 
great  a  number  as  fell  in  my  way  ;  for  when  they  are  subjected 
to  the  deepest  chemistry  of  thought,  that  which  descends  to  the 
point  of  relationship  between  the  form  of  the  truth  and  its  inte- 
rior formless  nature,  they  become,  thereupon,  so  elastic,  and  run 
so  freely  into  each  other,  that  one  seldom  need  have  any  diffi- 
culty in  accepting  as  many  as  are  offered  him."  P.  82.  This  is 
shocking.  It  undermines  all  confidence,  even  in  the  ordinary 
transactions  of  life.  There  can,  on  this  plan,  be  no  treaties  be- 
tween nations,  no  binding  contracts  between  individuals  ;  for 
"  the  chemistry"  which  can  make  all  creeds  alike,  will  soon  get 
what  results  it  pleases  out  of  any  form  of  words  that  can  be 
framed.  This  doctrine  supposes  there  can  be  no  revelation  from 
God  to  men,  except  to  the  imagination  and  the  feelings,  none  to 
the  reason.  It  supposes  that  man,  by  the  constitution  of  his 
nature  is  such  a  failure,  that  he  cannot  certainly  communicate  or 
receive  thought.  The  fallacy  of  all  Dr.  Bushnell's  reasoning  on 
this  subject,  is  so  transparent,  that  we  can  hardly  give  him  credit 
for  sincerity.  Because,  by  words  a  man  cannot  express  every- 
thing that  is  in  his  mind,  the  inference  is  that  he  can  express 
nothing  surely  ;  because  each  particular  word  may  be  figurative 
and  inadequate,  it  is  argued  that  no  number  or  combination  of 
words,  no  variety  of  illustration,  nor  diversity  in  the  mode  of  set- 
ting forth  the  same  truth,  can  convey  it  certainly  to  other  minds. 
He  confounds,  moreover,  knowing  everything  that  may  be  known 
of  a  given  subject,  with  understanding  any  definite  i)roposition 
respecting  it.  Because  there  is  infinitely  more  in  God  than  we 
can  ever  find  out,  therefore,  the  proposition,  God  is  a  Spirit, 
gives  us  no  definite  knowledge,  and  may  as  well  be  denied  as 
affirmed  I  His  own  illustration  on  this  point  is  the  proposition, 
"Man  thinks,"  which,  he  says,  has  "a  hundred  different  mean- 
ings." Admitting  that  the  subject  "  man,"  in  this  proposition, 
may  be  viewed  very  variously,  and  that  the  nature  and  laws  of 
the  process  of  thought  predicted  of  him,  are  very  doubtful  mat- 


GOD    IN    CHRIST.  441 

ters,  this  does  not  throw  the  smallest  obscurity  or  ambiguity  over 
the  proposition  itself.  It  conveys  a  definite  notion,  to  every 
human  being.  It  expresses  clearly  a  certain  amount  of  truth,  a 
fact  of  consciousness,  which,  within  certain  limits,  is  understood 
by  every  human  being  exactly  alike.  Beyond  those  limits  there 
may  be  indefinite  diversity.  But  this  does  not  render  the  propo- 
sition ambiguous.  The  man  who  should  reverse  the  assertion, 
and  say,  "  man  does  not  think,"  would  be  regarded  as  an  idiot, 
though  the  greatest  mental  chemist  of  the  age.  This  doctrine 
that  language  can  convey  no  specific,  definite  truth  to  the  un- 
derstanding, which  Dr.  Bushnell  uses  to  loosen  the  obligation  of 
creeds,  is  all  the  sceptic  needs,  to  destroy  the  authority  of  the 
Bible  ;  and  all  the  Jesuit  requires  to  free  himself  from  the  tram- 
mels of  common  veracity.  The  practical  difierence  between  be- 
lieving aU  creeds  and  believing  none,  is  very  small. 

What  our  author  says  of  logic  is  marked  with  the  same  ex- 
travagance. It  is  true  that  the  understanding  out  of  its  legiti- 
mate sphere,  is  a  perfectly  untrustworthy  guide.  When  it  applies 
its  categories  to  the  infinite,  or  endeavors  to  subject  the  incom- 
prehensible to  its  modes  it  must  necessarily  involve  itself  in 
contradictions.  It  is  easy,  therefore,  to  make  any  statement  re- 
lating to  the  eternity,  the  immensity,  or  will  of  God,  involve  the 
appearance  of  inward  conflict.  From  this  Dr.  Bushnell  infers 
{{.  e.,  when  speaking  as  a  mystic)  that  logic  and  the  understand- 
ing are  to  be  utterly  discarded  from  the  whole  sphere  of  religion  ; 
that  the  revelations  of  God  are  not  addressed  to  the  reason,  but 
to  the  aesthetic  principles  of  our  nature  ;  and  that  a  thing's  being 
absurd,  is  no  proof  that  it  is  not  true.  Nay,  the  more  absurd 
the  better.  He  glories  in  the  prospect  of  the  harvest  of  contra- 
dictions and  solecisms  the  critics  are  to  gather  from  his  book. 
He  regards  them  as  so  many  laurels  plucked  for  the  wreath  which 
is  to  adorn  his  brows.  That  we  may  not  be  suspected  of  having 
caught  a  little  of  the  Doctor's  extravagance,  we  beg  the  reader 
to  turn  to  such  passages  as  the  following  :  "  Probably  the  most 
contradictory  book  in  the  world  is  the  gospel  of  John  ;  and  that 
for  the  very  reason  that  it  contains  more  and  loftier  truths  than 
any  other."  P.  57.  "  There  is  no  book  in  the  world  that  con- 
tains so  many  repugnances,  or  antagonistic  forms  of  assertion,  as 
the  Bible.  Therefore,  if  any  man  please  to  play  off  his  construc- 
tive logic  upon  it,  he  can  easily  show  it  up  as  the  absurdest  book 


442  GOD    IN    CHRIST. 

in  the  world."  P.  69.  "  I  am  perfectly  well  aware  that  my 
readers  can  run  me  into  just  what  absurdity  they  please.  Noth- 
ing is  more  easy.  I  suppose  it  might  he  almost  as  easy  for  me 
to  do  it  as  for  them.  Indeed,  I  seem  to  have  the  whole  argu- 
ment which  a  certain  class  of  speculators  must  raise  upon  my 
Discourses,  in  order  to  he  characteristic,  fully  before  me.  I  see 
the  words  footing  it  along  to  their  conclusions.  1  see  the  terri- 
ble syllogisms  wheeling  out  their  infantry  on  my  fallacies  and 
absurdities."  P.  106.  He  laughs  at  syllogisms  as  a  ghost  would 
at  a  musket.  Syllogisms  are  well  enough  in  their  place  ;  but 
the  truth  he  teaches  is  perfectly  consistent  with  absurdity,  and 
therefore,  cannot  be  hurt  by  being  proved  to  be  absurd.  He 
says  :  "  There  may  be  solid,  living,  really  consistent  truth  in  the 
views  I  have  offered,  considering  the  Trinity  and  Atonement  as 
addressed  to  feeling  and  imagination,  when,  considered  as  ad- 
dressed to  logic,  there  is  only  absurdity  and  confusion  in  them." 
P.  108.  The  Incarnation  and  Trinity  "  offer  Grod,  not  so  much 
to  the  reason,  or  logical  understanding,  as  to  the  imagination, 
and  the  perceptive  or  aesthetic  aj^prehensiou  of  faith."  P.  102, 
They  are  to  be  accepted,  he  elsewhere  says,  and  addressed  "  to 
feeling  and  imaginative  reasons" — not  "  as  metaphysical  entities 
for  the  natural  understanding."   P.  111. 

It  is  among  the  first  principles  of  the  oracle  of  God,  that  re- 
generation and  sanctification  are  not  aesthetic  effects  produced 
through  the  imagination.  They  are  moral  and  spiritual  changes, 
wrought  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  with  and  by  the  truth  as  revealed 
to  the  reason.  The  whole  healthful  power  of  the  things  of  God 
over  the  feelings,  depends  upon  their  being  true  to  the  intellect. 
If  we  are  affected  by  the  revelation  of  God  as  a  father,  it  is  be- 
cause he  is  a  father,  and  not  the  picture  of  one.  If  we  have 
peace  through  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  it  is  because  he  is  a 
propitiation  for  our  sins  in  reality,  and  not  in  artistic  form 
merely.  The  Bible  is  not  a  cunningly-devised  fable — a  work  of 
fiction,  addressed  to  the  imagination.  It  would  do  little  for  the 
poor  and  the  homeless,  to  entertain  them  with  a  picture  of  Ely- 
sium. It  would  not  heal  a  leper  or  a  cripple,  to  allow  him  to 
gaze  on  the  Apollo  ;  nor  will  it  comfort  or  sanctify  a  convinced 
sinner,  to  set  before  him  any  sublime  imaginings  concerning  God 
and  atonement.  The  revelations  of  God  are  addressed  to  the 
whole  soul,  to  the  reason,  to  the  imagination,  to  the  heart,  and 


GOD    IN    CHRIST,  443 

to  the  conscience.  But  unless  they  are  true  to  the  reason,  they 
are  as  powerless  as  a  phantasm. 

Dr.  Bushnell  makes  no  distinction  between  knowing  and 
understanding.  Because  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  objects  of 
faith  should  be  understood  (i.  e.,  comprehended  in  their  nature 
and  relations),  he  infers  that  they  need  not  be  known.  Be- 
cause Grod  is  incomprehensible,  our  conceptions  of  him  may  be 
absurd  and  contradictory !  This  is  as  much  as  to  say,  that  be- 
cause there  are  depths  and  vastnesses  in  the  stellar  universe 
which  science  cannot  penetrate  ;  nebulae  which  no  telescope 
can  resolve,  therefore  we  may  as  rationally  believe  the  cos- 
mogony of  the  Hindus  as  the  Mechanique  Celeste.  It  is  plain 
the  poetic  element  in  Dr.  Bushnell's  constitution  has  so  com- 
pletely swallowed  up  the  rational  and  moral,  he  can  see  only 
through  the  medium  of  the  imagination.  Through  that  me- 
dium all  things  are  essentially  the  same.  Diiferent  creeds 
present  to  his  eye,  "  in  fine  frenzy  rolling,"  only  the  various 
patterns  of  a  kaleidoscope.  It  may  be  well  enough  for  him  to 
amuse  himself  with  that  pretty  toy ;  but  it  is  a  great  mistake  to 
publish  what  he  sees  as  discoveries,  as  though  a  kaleidoscope 
were  a  telescope. 

As  one  other  illustration  of  our  author's  spirit  of  exaggeration, 
we  would  refer  to  what  he  says  of  his  responsibility  for  his 
opinions.  No  man  will  deny  that  we  are  all  in  a  measure 
passive  in  the  reception  of  any  system  of  doctrine  ;  that  the 
circumstances  of  our  birth  and  education,  and  the  manifold  in- 
fluences of  our  peculiar  studies  and  associations,  and  especially 
(as  to  all  good)  of  the  Spirit  of  Grod,  determine,  in  a  great  meas- 
ure, our  whole  intellectual  and  moral  state.  But  under  these 
ah  extra  influences,  and  mingling  with  them,  is  the  mysterious 
operations  of  our  spontaneous  and  voluntary  nature,  yielding  or 
opposing,  choosing,  or  rejecting,  so  that  our  faith  becomes  the 
most  accurate  image  and  criterion  of  our  inner  man.  We  are 
what  we  believe  ;  our  faith  is  the  expression  of  our  true  moral 
character,  and  is  the  highest  manifestation  of  our  inward  self. 
We  are  more  responsible,  therefore,  for  our  faith  than  even  for 
our  acts  ;  for  the  latter  are  apt  to  be  impulsive,  while  the  for- 
mer is  the  steady  index  of  the  soul,  pointing  God-ward  or 
earth-ward.  Dr.  Bushnell,  however,  pushes  the  admitted  fact 
that  outward  and  inward  influences  have  so  much  power  over 


444  GOD    IN     CHRIST. 

men,  to  tlie  extent  of  denying  all  responsibility  for  his  opinions. 
"  I  seem,"  he  says,  "  with  regard  to  the  views  presented,  to  have 
had  only  about  the  same  agency  in  forming  them,  that  I  have 
in  preparing  the  blood  I  circulate,  and  the  anatomic  frame  I 
occupy.  They  are  not  my  choice  or  invention,  so  much  as  a 
necessary  growth,  whose  process  I  can  hardly  trace  myself 
And  now,  in  giving  them  to  the  public,  I  seem  only  to  have 
about  the  same  kind  of  option  left  me  that  I  have  in  the  matter 
of  appearing  in  corporal  manifestation  myself — about  the  same 
anxiety,  I  will  add,  concerning  the  unfavorable  judgments  to  be 
encountered  ;  for  though  a  man's  opinions  are  of  vastly  greater 
moment  than  his  looks,  yet,  if  he  is  equally  simple  in  them,  as 
in  his  growth,  and  equally  subject  to  his  law,  he  is  responsible 
only  in  the  same  degree,  and  ought  not,  in  fact,  to  suffer  any 
greater  concern  about  their  reception  than  about  the  judgment 
passed  upon  his  person."  P.  98. 

Hence  the  sublime  confidence  expressed  on  p.  116  :  "  The 
truths  here  uttered  are  not  mine.  They  live  in  their  own  ma- 
jesty. *  *  *  If  they  are  rejected  universally,  then  I  leave 
them  to  time,  as  the  body  of  Christ  was  left,  believing  that  after 
three  days  they  rise  again."  We  venture  to  predict  that  these 
days  will  turn  out  to  be  demiurgic. 

AU  we  have  yet  said  respecting  the  characteristics  of  these 
Discourses  might  be  true,  and  yet  their  general  tendency  be 
good.  It  is  conceivable  that  a  book  may  pull  do^vn  rather  than 
construct ;  that  its  materials  may  be  incongruous,  and  its  tone 
exaggerated,  and  yet  its  principles  and  results  be  in  the  main 
correct.  This,  we  are  sorry  to  say,  is  very  far  from  being  the 
case  with  regard  to  the  volume  now  before  us.  Its  principles 
and  results  are  alike  opposed  to  the  settled  faith  of  the  Christian 
world.  This  we  shall  endeavor,  as  briefly  as  possible,  to  demon- 
strate. 

We  have  already  said  that  the  spirit  of  this  book  is  rational- 
istic. The  Kationalism  which  we  charge  on  Dr.  Bushnell  is 
not  that  of  the  Deists,  which  denies  any  higher  source  of  truth 
than  human  reason.  Nor  is  it  that  KationaHsm  which  Avill  re- 
ceive nothing  except  on  rational  grounds  ;  which  admits  the 
truths  of  revelation  only  because  they  can  be  proved  from 
reason  though  not  discovered  by  it.  The  charge  is,  that  he 
unduly  exalts  the  authority  of  reason  as  a  judge  of  the  contents 


GOD    IN    CHRIST.  445 

of  an  admitted  revelation.  All  men,  do,  of  necessity,  either  ex- 
pressly or  by  implication,  admit  that  reason  has  a  certain  judicial 
authority  in  matters  of  faith.  This  arises  from  God's  being  the 
author  both  of  reason  and  revelation.  And  he  has  so  constituted 
our  nature,  that  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  believe  contradictions. 
We  may  believe  things  which  we  cannot  reconcile  ;  but  we  can- 
not believe,  any  proposition  which  affirms  and  denies  the  same 
thing.  Contradictions,  however,  are  carefully  to  be  distinguished 
both  from  things  merely  incomj)rehensible,  and  from  those  which 
are  not  made  evident  to  us,  and  which,  for  the  time  being,  we 
cannot  believe.  A  contradiction  is  seen  to  be  such,  as  soon 
as  the  terms  in  which  it  is  expressed  are  understood.  That 
a  thing  is  and  is  not  ;  that  tlie  whole  is  less  than  one  of  its 
parts  ;  that  sin  is  hohness  ;  that  one  person  is  three  persons,  or 
two  persons  are  one,  are  at  once,  aHcl  by  all  men,  seen  to  be  im- 
possibilities. A  contradiction  cannot  be  true,  what  is  incompre- 
hensible may  be.  Its  being  incomprehensible  may  depend  on  our 
ignorance  or  weakness  of  intellect.  What  is  incomprehensible  to 
a  child  is  often  perfectly  intelligible  to  a  man.  While,  therefore, 
we  cannot  be  required  to  believe  contradictions,  we  are  com- 
manded to  believe,  at  the  peril  of  salvation,  much  that  we  cannot 
understand. 

Men  often  confound  these  two  classes  of  things,  and  reject,  as 
contradictory  what  is  merely  incomprehensible.  This,  how- 
ever, is  rationalism  ;  it  is  an  abuse  of  the  judicium  contradic- 
tionis  which  belongs  to  reason.  It  is  a  still  more  common  form 
of  rationalism  to  reject  doctrines  because  they  are  distasteful,  or 
because  they  conflict  with  our  opinions  or  prejudices.  Of  such 
rationalism  the  church  is  full.  Men's  likes  and  dislikes  are,  after 
all,  in  a  multitude  of  cases,  their  true  rule  of  faith. 

It  is  with  both  these  forms  of  Rationalism  we  think  Dr.  Bush- 
nell's  book  is  chargeable.  With  him  the  questions  respecting 
the  Trinity  and  Incarnation  are  not  questions  of  scriptural  in- 
terpretation. He  scarcely,  especially  as  to  the  former,  deigns 
to  ask,  What  does  the  Bible  teach  ?  The  whole  subject  is  sub- 
mitted to  "  the  constructive  logic."  Can  the  church  doctrine,  on 
these  points,  be  reduced  under  the  categories  of  the  understand- 
ing ?  This,  with  Dr.  B.,  is  the  great  question.  Because  he 
cannot  see  how  there  can  be  three  persons  in  the  same  divine 
substance,  he  pronounces  it  to  be  impossible.     He  admits  that 


446  GOD    IN     CHRIST. 

the  Scriptures  appear  to  teach  this  doctrine ;  nay,  that  we  arc 
forced  to  conceive  of  God  as  triune,  to  answer  our  own  inward 
necessities  ;  but  there  stands  Logic,  saying.  It  cannot  be  so,  and 
he  believes  Logic  rather  than  God  ;  not  observing,  alas  !  that 
Logic,  in  this  case,  is  only  Dr.  Bushnell.  It  may,  indeed,  be 
asked,  How  are  we  to  tell  what  is  a  contradiction  ?  Or  what 
right  have  we  to  call  a  man  a  Rationalist  for  rejecting  a  doctrine 
which  appears  to  him  to  contradict  reason  ?  We  answer  :  all 
real  self-contradictions  are  self-evidently  such.  Of  necessity, 
the  responsibihty  in  such  cases  is  a  personal  one.  If  one  man 
denies  the  existence  of  a  personal  God,  another  the  responsibility 
of  man,  another  divine  providence,  on  the  ground  that  these  doc- 
trines contradict  reason,  they  act  at  their  peril.  It  is  neverthe- 
less both  the  right  and  the  duty  of  all  Christians  to  denounce,  as 
the  manifestation  of  a  rationalistic  spirit,  all  rejection  of  the  plain 
doctrines  of  the  Scripture  as  self-contradictory  and  absurd.  Such 
condemnation  is  involved  in  their  continued  faith  in  the  Bible  as 
a  revelation  of  God. 

If  the  church  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  Incarnation  are 
rejected  in  this  volume  on  the  ground  that  they  involve  contra- 
dictions, the  doctrine  of  atonement  is  no  less  evidently  repu- 
diated because  the  author  does  not  like  it.  It  offends  his 
feelings,  or,  as  he  supposes,  his  "correct  moral  sentiments ;"  just 
as  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  future  punishment  offends  the  moral 
sentiments  of  Universalists.  His  objections  are  not  derived 
from  Scripture.  They  are  the  cavils  of  the  understanding  or 
of  offended  feeling.  When  arguments  of  this  sort  are  exhaust- 
ed, he  is  perfectly  bankrupt,  and,  as  is  too  apt  to  be  the  case 
with  bankrupts,  he  then  turns  dishonest.  We  hardly  know 
where  to  look  for  a  more  uncandid  representation  of  the  church 
doctrine,  than  is  to  be  found  on  pp.  196,  197.  This  is  the  more 
inexcusable,  as  Dr.  B.  himself  admits  that  it  is  under  those 
very  forms  of  sin-ofiering  and  propitiation,  the  work  of  Christ 
is  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and  it  is  to  those  forms  he  at- 
tributes all  its  power.  But  it  is  a  contradiction  to  say  that 
Christ's  death  under  the  form  of  a  propitiation,  can  be  effective 
as  an  expression  of  good,  if  his  being  an  actual  propitiation,  is 
offensive.  If  the  reality  is  horrible,  the  representation  cannot 
be  beauty.  As  well  might  the  Gorgonian  head  be  used  to  sub- 
due the  world  to  love. 


GOD     IN     CHKIST.  447 

But  if  Rationalism  is  Dr.  Bushnell's  sword,  Mysticism  is  his 
shield.  So  long  as  he  is  attacking,  no  man  makes  more  of  the 
"  constructive  logic  ;"  but  as  soon  as  the  logic  is  brought  to  bear 
against  himself,  he  turns  saint,  and  is  wrapt  in  contemplation. 
He  wonders  people  should  expect  a  poem  to  prove  any  thing  ;  or 
require  any  thing  so  beautiful  as  religion  to  be  true.  He  is  like 
one  of  those  fighting  priests  of  the  middle  ages,  who,  so  long  as 
there  was  any  robbing  to  be  done,  were  always  in  the  saddle  ;  but 
as  soon  as  the  day  of  reckoning  came,  pleaded  loudly  their  benefit 
of  clergy. 

There  are  several  kinds  of  Mysticism  ;  and  as  Dr.  B.  recom- 
mends both  Neander  and  Madame  Guyon,  who  difi'er  toto  coelo, 
it  is  difficult  to  say  which  he  means  to  adopt ;  or  whether,  as  is 
his  wont,  he  means  to  believe  them  all.  In  the  general,  Mysticism 
is  faith  in  an  immediate,  continued,  supernatural,  divine  opera- 
tion on  the  soul,  effecting  a  real  union  with  Grod,  and  attainable 
only  by  a  passive  waiting  or  inward  abstraction  and  rest.  The 
di\'ine  influence  or  operation,  assumed  in  Mysticism,  difters  from 
the  scriptural  doctrine  concerning  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  as  the 
former  is  assumed  to  be  a  continued,  immediate  influence,  instead 
of  with  and  by  the  truth.  The  Scriptures  do  indeed  teach  that,  in 
the  moment  of  regeneration,  the  Spirit  of  God  acts  directly  on  the 
soul,  but  they  do  not  inculcate  any  such  continued  direct  opera- 
tion as  mysticism  supposes.  After  regeneration,  all  the  operations 
of  the  Spirit  are  in  connexion  with  the  word  ;  and  the  effects  of 
his  influence  are  always  rational — L  e.,  they  involve  an  intellect- 
ual apprehension  of  the  truth  revealed  in  the  Scriptures.  The 
whole  inward  life,  thus  induced,  is  therefore  dependent  on  the 
written  word  and  conformed  to  it.  It  is  no  vague  ecstacy  of  feel- 
ing, or  spiritual  inebriation,  in  which  all  vision  is  lost,  of  which 
the  Spirit  of  truth  is  the  author  ;  but  a  form  of  life  in  which  the 
illuminated  intellect  informs  and  controls  the  affections.  Neither 
is  Mysticism  to  be  confounded  with  inspiration.  The  latter  is  an 
influence  on  the  reason,  revealing  truth  or  guiding  the  intellect- 
ual operations  of  the  mind.  Mysticism  makes  the  feelings  the 
immediate  subject  of  this  divine  impression,  and  the  intellect  to 
be  rather  indirectly  influenced.  The  idea  of  an  immediate 
operation  of  God  on  the  soul  is  so  prominent  in  Mysticism,  that 
Luther  calls  the  Pope  the  Great  Mystic,  because  of  his  claim  to 


448  ^  GOD    IN    CHRIST. 

perpetual  inspiration,  or  supernatural  guidance  of  the  Spirit,  in- 
dependent of  the  word.' 

A  second  form  of  Mysticism  is  that  which  places  religion 
entirely  in  the  feelings,  excited  by  the  presence  of  God,  and  makes 
doctrine  of  very  subordinate  moment.  It  is  not  the  intellect  that 
is  relied  upon  to  receive  truth  as  presented  in  the  word,  but  a 
spiritual  insight  is  assumed,  a  direct  intuition  of  the  things  of 
God.  This  again  is  very  different  from  the  scriptural  doctrine  of 
divine  illumination.  The  latter  supposes  the  Spirit  to  open  the 
eyes  of  the  mind  to  see  the  things  freely  given  to  us  by  God  in 
the  word.  It  is  only  the  scriptural  discernment  of  the  things  of 
the  Spirit  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  to  which  this  illumination 
leads.  But  the  intuitions  of  the  mystic  are  above  and  apart 
from  the  word,  and  of  higher  authority.  The  letter  kills  him  ; 
the  inward  sense  discerned  by  a  holy  instinct,  gives  him  life. 
Besides  the  forms  above  mentioned,  there  is  a  philosoj^hical  Mys- 
ticism, which  scientifically  evolves  doctrine  out  of  feeling.  In- 
stead of  making  the  objective  in  religion  control  the  subjective, 
it  does  the  reverse.  It  admits  no  doctrines  but  such  as  are  sup- 
posed to  be  the  intellectual  expressions  of  Christian  feeling.  To 
this  doubtless  Neander,  as  a  friend  and  pupil  of  Schleiermacher, 
the  author  of  this  theory,  is  more  or  less  inclined.  The  term 
Mysticism  is  used  in  a  still  wider  sense.  The  assertion,  that  re- 
ligion is  not  a  mere  matter  of  the  intellect,  a  mere  philosophy,  or 
that  there  is  more  in  it  than  a  correct  creed  and  moral  life,  has 
been,  and  often  is,  called  Mysticism.  This,  however,  is  merely  a 
protest  against  Kationalism,  or  formal,  traditionary,  and  lifeless 
orthodoxy.  In  this  sense  all  evangelical  Christians  are  mystics. 
This  is  a  mere  abuse  of  the  term. 

It  is  obvious  that  Mysticism,  properly  so  called,  in  all  its  forms, 
makes  little  of  doctrine.  It  has  a  source  of  knowledge  higher 
than  the  Scriptures.  The  life  of  God  in  the  soul  is  assumed  to 
be  as  informing  now  as  in  the  case  of  the  apostles.  The  Scrip- 
tures, therefore,  are  not  needed,  and  they  are  not  regarded,  as 
either  the  ground  or  rule  of  faith.  The  ordinary  means  of  grace 
are  of  still  less  importance. .   The  church  is  nothing.     The  spirit- 

'  Quid  ?  quod  etiam  Papatus  simpliciter  est  merus  enthusiasmus,  quo  Papa  gloria- 
tur,  omnia  jura  esse  in  scrinio  sui  pectorisi,  et  quidquid  ipse  iu  ecclesia  sua  sentit  et 
jubet,  id  spiritum  et  justum  esse,  etiamsi  supra  et  contra  scripturam  et  vocale  verbum 
aliqnid  statuat  et  prajcipiat.     Articuli  Smalcaldici,  p.  iii.  8. 


GOD    IN     CHRIST.  449 

ual  life  of  the  soul  is  not  preserved  by  the  ordinances  of  God, 
but  by  isolation  and  quietism.  By  this  neglect  of  Scripture  the 
door  is  opened  for  all  sorts  of  vagaries  to  usurp  the  place  of  truth. 
And  the  kind  of  religion  thus  fostered  is  either  a  poetic  senti- 
mentalism  or  a  refined  sensualism,  which  becomes  less  and  less 
refined  the  longer  it  is  indulged.  Dr.  Bushnell  must  remember 
that  he  is  not  the  first  mystic  by  a  great  many  thousands,  and 
that  this  whole  tendency,  of  which  he  has  become  the  advocate  and 
exemplar,  has  left  its  melancholy  traces  in  the  history  of  the  church. 

The  position  of  our  author,  in  reference  to  this  subject,  is  to  be 
learned,  partly  from  his  direct  assertions,  partly  from  the  general 
spirit  of  his  book,  and  partly  from  the  fruits  or  results  of  the 
system,  so  far  as  they  are  here  avowed.  We  can  refer  to  little 
more  than  some  of  his  most  explicit  declarations  on  the  subject. 
On  p.  92,  he  complains  of  "  the  theologic  method  of  New  Eng- 
land" as  being  essentially  rationalistic.  "  The  possibility  of 
reasoning  out  religion,  though  denied  in  words,  has  been  tacitly 
assumed.  ■•'  ■••'•"  *  It  has  not  been  held  as  a  practical,  positive, 
and  earnest  Christian  truth,  that  there  is  a  Perceptive  Power 
in  spiritual  life,  an  unction  of  the  Holy  One,  which  is  itself  a 
kind  of  inspiration — an  immediate,  experimental  knowledge  of 
God,  by  virtue  of  which,  and  partly  in  the  degree  of  which.  Chris- 
tian theology  is  possible." 

In  opposition  to  the  rationalistic  method,  as  he  considers  it, 
"  The  views  of  language,  here  ofiered,"  he  says,  "  lead  to  a  dif- 
ferent method.  The  Scriptures  will  be  more  studied  than  they 
have  been,  and  in  a  different  manner — not  as  a  magazine  of 
propositions  and  mere  dialectic  entities,  but  as  inspirations  and 
poetic  forms  of  life  ;  requiring,  also,  divine  inbreathings  and 
exaltations  in  us,  that  we  may  ascend  into  their  meaning.  Our 
opinions  will  be  less  catechetical  and  definite,  using  the  word  as 
our  definers  do,  but  they  will  be  as  much  broader  as  they  are  more 
divine  ;  as  much  truer,  as  they  are  more  vital  and  closer  to  the 
plastic,  undefinable  mysteries  of  spiritual  life.  We  shall  seem  to 
understand  less  and  shall  actually  receive  more.  We  shall  de- 
light in  truth,  more  as  a  concrete,  vital  nature,  incarnated  in  all 
fact  and  symbol  round  us — a  vast,  mysterious,  incomprehensible 
power,  which  best  we  know,  when  most  we  love."  ^  A  mystic," 
he  says,  "  is  one  who  finds  a  secret  meaning,  both  in  words  and 
things,  back  of  their  common  and  accepted  meaning — some  agency 

29 


450  GOD    IN    CHRIST. 

of  Life  or  of  Living  Thought,  hid  under  the  forms  of  words 
and  institutions,  and  historical  events."  He  quotes  Neander  as 
saying  that  the  apostle  John  "  exhibits  all  the  incidents  of  the 
outward  history  of  Christ,  only  as  a  manifestation  of  his  indwell- 
ing glory,  by  which  this  may  be  brought  home  to  the  heart. 
*  *  ■*  John  is  the  representative  of  the  truth  which  lies  at 
the  basis  of  that  tendency  of  the  Christian  spirit,  which  sets 
itself  in  opposition  to  a  one-sided  intellectualism,  and  ecclesias- 
tical formality — and  is  distinguished  by  the  name  mysticism." 
P.  95.  "  I  make  no  disavowal,"  adds  our  author,  "  that  there  is 
a  mystic  element,  as  there  should  be,  in  what  I  have  represented 
as  the  source  of  language,  and,  also,  in  the  views  of  Christian 
life  and  doctrine  that  follow."  On  p.  347,  he  recommends  to 
Christians  ministers  and  students  of  theology  "  that  they  make  a 
study,  to  some  extent,  of  the  mystic  and  quietistic  writers."  Be- 
sides these  distinct  avowals,  the  main  design  of  the  book  mani- 
fests the  writer's  position.  His  great  object  is  to  prove  that 
positive  doctrines  have  no  authority  ;  that  the  revelations  of  God 
are  addressed  to  the  imagination,  and  not  to  the  reason  ;  that  their 
truth  lies  in  what  they  express.  The  work  of  Christ,  he  says, 
"  Is  more  a  poem  than  a  treatise.  It  classes  as  a  work  of  art 
more  than  as  a  work  of  science.  It  addresses  the  understanding, 
in  great  part,  through  the  feeling  or  sensibility.  In  these  it  has 
its  receptivities,  by  these  it  is  perceived,  or  is  perceivable."  P.  204. 
It  is  as  a  mystic  he  pour.s  forth  his  whole  tirade  against  theology, 
catechisms,  and  creeds.  It  is  not  by  truth,  but  by  merging  all 
differences  of  doctrine,  in  sesthetic  emotions,  that  religion  is  to  be 
revived,  and  all  Christians  are  to  be  united.  It  is  not  the  philo- 
sophical mysticism  of  Neander,  which  makes  havoc  enough  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  Bible,  which  this  volume  advocates  ;  but  a  mere 
poetic  seutimentalism.  The  author  would  provide  a  crucible  in 
which  all  Christian  truth  is  to  be  sublimated.  To  the  mys- 
tic the  Bible  is  a  mere  picture-book  ;  and  Christian  ordinances 
absolutely  nothing.  We  have  accordingly  in  this  volume  a  dis- 
course on  the  "True  reviving  of  Religion,"  in  which  there  is  not 
one  word  said  of  the  importance  of  doctrinal  truth,  or  of  the 
means  of  grace,  or  of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Its  whole 
drift  is  to  show  that  doctrine,  stigmatized  as  "  dogma,"  is  human, 
and  lifeless,  and  that  immediate  insight,  "  the  perceptive  power" 
■of  the  inner  life,  is  the  true  source  of  all  those  views  of  divine 


GOD     IN     CHRIST.  451 

things,  which  are  really  operative,  and  that  the  great  means  of 
attaining  those  views,  and  of  bringing  the  soul  into  union  with 
God,  is  Quietism. 

The  main  objection  to  this  book,  however,  has  not  yet  been 
stated.  Some  men  have  been  as  rationalistic,  and  others  as  mys- 
tical as  Dr.  Bushnell,  who  have  nevertheless  held  fast  the  great 
doctrines  of  the  gospel ;  whereas  Dr.  Bushnell  discards  them, 
and  substitutes  the  phantoms  of  his  own  imagination  in  their 
place.  This  is  plainly  the  case  with  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  The  course  which  the  church  has  pursued  in  reference 
to  this,  and  similar  doctrines,  is  to  make  a  careful  collation  of  all 
the  scriptural  facts  relating  to  the  subject,  and  then  to  frame  a 
statement  of  those  facts,  which  shall  avoid  any  contradiction, 
either  of  itself  or  of  other  revealed  truths.  Such  statement  is 
then  the  church  doctrine  as  to  that  subject.  The  doctrine  does 
not  profess  to  be  an  explanation  of  the  facts,  nor  a  reconciliation 
of  them,  but  simply  a  statement  of  them,  free  from  contradic- 
tion, which  is  to  be  received  on  the  authority  of  God.  The 
essential  facts  contained  in  Scripture  concerning  the  Trinity  are  : 

1.  There  is  but  one  God  ;  one  divine  being,  nature,  or  substance, 

2.  That  to  the  Father,  the   Son,  and  the   Holy  Ghost,  divine 
titles,  attributes,  works,  and  worship,  are  ascribed.     3.  That  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  are  so  distinguished,  the  one  from  the 
other,  that  each  is   the  source  and  the  object  of  action  ;  the 
Father  loves  and  sends  the  Son  ;  the  Son  loves  and  reveals  the 
Father  ;  the  Spirit  testifies  of  the  Son  and  is  sent  by  him.    The 
personal  pronouns,  I,  Tliou,  He,  are  used  to  express  this  distinc- 
tion.    The  Father  says   Thou,  to  the  Son  ;  and  the  Son  says 
Thou,  to  the  Father.     Both  speaking  of  the  Spirit,  says  He  or 
Him.    All  this  is  done  not  casually,  occasionally,  or  rhetorically, 
but  uniformly,  solemnly,  and  didactically.     4.  The  Father,  Son, 
and  Spirit  are  represented  as  doing,  each  a  specific  work,  and  all 
co-operating,  outwardly  and  inwardly,  in  the  redemption  of  man ; 
and  we  are  required  to  perform  specific  duties  which  terminate 
on  each.     We  are  to  look  to  the  Father  as  our  Father,  to  the 
Son  as  our  Redeemer,  to  the  Spirit  as  our  Paraclete.     We  are 
bound  to  acknowledge  each  ;  as  we  are  baptized  in  the  name  of 
the  Son  and  Spirit,  as  well  as  in  the  name  of  the  Father.     We 
believe  in  the  Son,  as  we  do  in  the  Father,  and  honor  the  one  as 
we  do  the  other.     Christianity,  therefore,  not  merely  as  a  system 


452  GOD    IN    CHRIST, 

of  doctrine,  but  as  a  practical  religion,  is  founded  on  this  doc- 
trine. The  God  who  is  the  object  of  all  the  exercise  of  Christian 
piety,  is  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 

-  Such,  by  common  consent,  are  the  scriptural  facts  on  this 
subject.  The  summation  of  these  facts,  in  the  form  of  doctrine, 
as  given  by  the  church,  is :  "  There  are  three  persons  in  the 
Godhead :  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  and  these 
three  are  one  God,  the  same  in  substance,  and  equal  in  power 
and  glory."  This  is  the  sum  of  the  Nicene  and  Athanasian 
creeds,  the  common  faith  of  the  Christian  world.  It  is  scarcely 
more  than  a  compendious  statement  of  admitted  facts.  The 
word  person  is  only  a  concise  form  of  expressing  the  third  class 
of  facts  above  mentioned.  It  is  not  intended  to  explain  them. 
It  is  intended  simply  as  a  denial  that  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Spirit  are  mere  modal  distinctions,  or  different  revelations  of 
God  ;  and  to  affirm  that  those  terms  indicate  such  distinctions, 
as  that  each  is  the  agent  and  object  of  action,  and  can  say  I,  and 
be  properly  addressed  as  Thou.  The  clmrch  has  never  taught 
that  there  are  three  consciousnesses,  intelligences,  and  wills,  in 
God.  It  has  humbly  refused  to  press  its  definition  of  person 
beyond  the  limits  just  indicated,  and  has  preferred  to  leave  the 
nature  of  these  distinctions  in  that  obscurity  wdiich  must  ever 
overhang  the  infinite  God  in  the  view  of  his  finite  creatures.  As 
the  Bible  does  most  clearly  teach  the  existence  of  this  threefold 
personal  distinction  in  the  Godhead,  the  only  question  is,  whether 
we  will  renounce  its  authority,  or  believe  what  it  asserts.  Dr. 
Bushnell  does  not  attempt  to  show  that  the  church  doctrine  on 
this  subject  is  unscriptural.  His  only  objection  is,  that  he  can- 
not understand  it.  He  sums  up  his  whole  argument  on  the 
subject,  by  saying :  "  Such  is  the  confusion  produced  by  at- 
tempting to  assert  a  real  and  metaphysical  trinity  of  persons,  in 
the  divine  nature.  Whether  the  word  is  taken  at  its  full  import, 
or  diminished  away  to  the  mere  something  called  a  distinction, 
there  is  produced  only  contrariety,  confusion,  practical  negation, 
not  light/'  P.  135.  This  is  all  he  has  to  say.  If  the  word  per- 
son has  its  proper  sense,  then  the  church  doctrine  asserts  three 
consciousnesses,  intelligences,  and  wills,  in  the  divine  nature.  If 
it  means  merely  a  "  distinction,"  then  Trinitarians  do  not  differ 
from  Unitarians.  The  former  he  asserts  is  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  and  therefore,  "  any  intermediate  doctrine  between  the  ab- 


GOD    IN     CHKIST.  453 

solute  unity  of  G-od  and  a  social  unity  is  impossible  and  incredir 
ble."  He  shuts  us  up  to  Tritheism  or  Unitarianism — no  three- 
fold distinction  in  the  divine  nature  can  be  admitted.  There 
can  be  no  doubt,  therefore,  either  as  to  our  author's  rejection  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  or  as  to  the  purely  rationalistic 
grounds  of  that  rejection. 

His  own  view  of  the  subject  is,  that  the  terms  Father,  Son, 
and  Spirit,  refer  to  the  threefold  revelation  of  God.  He  says, 
speaking  of  "  Schleiermacher's  critique  of  Sabellius,"  translated 
and  pubhshed  in  the  Biblical  Repository  :  "  The  general  view  of 
the  Trinity  in  that  article  coincides,  it  will  be  observed,  with  the 
view  which  I  have  presented,  though  the  reasonings  are  not  in 
all  points  the  same."  P.  111.  With  Schleiermacher  the  absolute 
G-od  is  unknown.  It  is  only  the  manifested  or  revealed  God  of 
which  we  can  speak.  This  revelation  is  threefold.  First,  the 
manifestation  of  the  one  God  in  the  world  ;  this  is  the  Father. 
Second,  the  manifestation  of  the  one  God  in  Jesus  Chi'ist ;  this 
is  the  Son.  Third,  the  revelation  of  the  one  God  in  the  church  ; 
this  is  the  Spirit.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  quote  particular  pas- 
sages to  show  how  exactly  Dr.  Bushnell  has  adopted  this  system. 
In  language  almost  Hegelian,  he  asks,  page  129  :  What  concep- 
tion shall  we  form  "  of  God  as  simply  in  Himself,  and  as  yet  un- 
revealed  ?  Only  that  He  is  the  Absolute  being,  the  Infinite, 
the  I  am  that  I  am,  giving  no  sign  that  he  is  other  than  that 
he  is."  "  But  there  is  in  God,  taken  as  the  absolute  Being,  a 
capacity  of  self-expression,  so  to  speak,  which  is  peculiar — a  gen- 
erative power  of  fo]"m,  a  creative  imagination,  in  which,  or  by  the 
aid  of  which.  He  can  produce  Himself  outwardly,  or  represent 
himself  in  the  finite."  P.  145.  In  creating  worlds,  "  He  only 
represents,  expresses,  or  outwardly  produces  himself"  This  is 
the  first  revelation,  or  the  Father.  But,  "  as  G-od  has  produced 
himself  in  all  the  other  finite  forms  of  being,"  so  he  appears  in 
the  human.  This  is  the  second  revelation,  or  the  Son.  Pp.  146, 
147.  "  But  in  order  to  the  full  and  complete  apprehension  of 
God,  a  third  personality,  the  Holy  Spirit,  needs  to  appear.  By 
the  Logos  in  the  creation,  and  then  by  the  Logos  in  the  Incarna- 
tion, assisted  or  set  off  by  the  Father  as  a  relative  personality, 
God's  character,  feeling,  and  truth,  are  expressed.  '••'■■  *  * 
But  we  want,  also,  to  conceive  of  Him  as  in  act  within  us,  work- 
ing in  us  under  the  conditions  of  time  and  progression,  spiritual 


454  GOD    IN     CHRIST. 

results  of  quickening,  deliverance,  and  purification  from  evil. 
*  *  ••'  Accordingly,  the  natural  image.  Spirit,  that  is,  breath, 
is  taken  up  and  clothed  with  personality."  P.  171.  This  is  the 
third  revelation,  or  the  Holy  Spirit.  This,  true  enough,  is  the 
Sabellianism  of  Schleiermacher — a  threefold  revelation  of  God  in 
the  world,  in  Christ,  and  in  the  church. 

This  is  all  ver}'  fine.  But  there  is  one  thing  that  spoils  it  all. 
Dr.  Bushnell  holds  the  details  of  a  system  without  holding  its 
fundamental,  formative  princijile.  There  is  nothing  in  this  book 
to  intimate  that  he  is  really  a  Pantheist.  On  the  contrary,  there 
is  everything  against  that  assumption.  Schleiermaclier's  whole 
system,  however,  rests  on  the  doctrine  that  there  is  but  one  sub- 
stance in  the  universe,  which  substance  is  Grod  ;  and  especially 
that  the  divine  and  human  natures  are  identical.  It  is  well 
enough,  therefore,  for  him  to  talk  of  Grod's  producing  himself  in 
the  world  ;  for  accordiag  to  his  theory,  in  a  veiy  high  sense,  the 
world  is  God.  It  is  well  enough  for  him  to  say  that,  though 
Christ  is  God,  he  had  but  one  nature,  because,  with  him  the 
human  nature  is  divine,  and  a  perfect  man  is  God.  What,  there- 
fore, in  Schleiermacher  is  consistent  and  imposing,  is  in  Dr. 
Bushnell  simply  absurd.  The  system  of  the  one  is  a  Doric  tem- 
ple, that  of  the  other  is  a  heap  of  stones. 

We  will  not  insult  our  readers  with  any  argument  to  show 
that  the  Bible  does  not  teach  Sabellianism.  If  any  one  needs 
such  proof,  we  refer  him  to  those  parts  of  this  book  in  which  Dr. 
Bushnell  attempts  to  prove  that  the  one  divine  person,  incarnate 
in  Christ,  sent  himself,  obeyed  himself,  and  worshipped  himself. 
The  perusal  will  doubtless  excite  the  reader's  pity,  but  it  will 
effectually  convince  him  he  must  renounce  faith  in  the  Scriptures 
before  he  can  be  a  Sabellian.  There  is  another  thing  to  be  ob- 
served. Schleiermacher  stands  outside  of  the  Bible.  He  professes 
to  it  no  manner  of  allegiance  as  a  rule  of  faith.  He  takes  out 
of  it  what  he  likes,  and  combining  it  with  his  Pantheistical  prin- 
ciples, constructs  a  massive  system  of  Theosophical  philosophy, 
which  does  not  pretend  to  rest  on  the  authority  of  an  objective 
revelation.  It  is  enough,  therefore,  to  move  one  to  wonder,  or 
to  indignation,  to  see  that  system,  which  its  author  puts  forth  as 
human,  presented  l)y  professed  believers  in  the  Bible  as  scrip- 
tural and  divine.  Dr.  Bushnell  has  chosen  to  enroll  himself 
among  the  avowed  opposers  of  the  church  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 


GOD    IN    CHRIST.  455 

He  fully  endorses  as  conclusive  the  common  Unitarian  objections 
to  that  doctrine,  and  then  presents  one  for  which  its  author 
claims  no  divine  authority,  and  which  stands  in  undisguised  op- 
position to  the  word  of  Grod.  He  must  stretch  his  license  as  a 
poet  a  great  way,  if  he  can  claim  to  be  a  Trinitarian,  simply  be- 
cause he  recognizes  a  threefold  revelation  of  God.  If  this  be 
enough  to  constitute  a  Trinitarian,  the  title  may  be  claimed  by 
all  the  Pantheists  of  ancient  and  modern  times.  They  all  have 
a  thesis,  antithesis,  and  synthesis,  of  some  sort.  They  all  teach 
that  the  absolute  Being  (which  they  represent  very  much  as  Dr. 
Bushnell  does,  as  nihil),  of  which  nothing  can  be  affirmed  and 
nothing  denied,  is  ever  coming  to  self-consciousness  in  the  world, 
and  returning  into  himself.  Dr.  B.  affirms  with  them  an  eternal 
creation  (page  146),  and  gives  us,  for  the  living  and  ever-blessed 
Trinity,  nothing  but  a  lifeless  Grod,  a  world,  and  humanity. 
This  at  least  is  substantially  the  system  which  he  professes  to 
adopt,  and  of  which  his  book,  in  one  aspect,  is  a  feeble  and  dis- 
torted image.  We  say  in  one  aspect,  because  it  is  only  in  one 
aspect.  It  is  characteristic  of  these  Discourses,  as  we  remarked 
at  the  outset,  that  their  elements  are  incongruous.  They  teach 
everything,  and  of  course  nothing.  Pantheism  is  only  one  of  the 
phases  in  which  the  manifold  system  of  the  author  is  presented. 
The  book  is  really  theistical,  after  all. 

In  rejecting  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  our  author 
of  course  discards  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation. 
That  doctrine  is  arrived  at  precisely  as  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  was  framed.  It  is  but  a  comprehensive  statement  of 
the  facts  asserted  in  the  Scriptures  concerning  the  Lord  Jesus. 
The  most  essential  of  those  facts  are  :  1.  That  all  the  titles, 
attributes  and  perfections  of  God  are  ascribed  to  him,  and  that 
we  are  required  to  render  to  him  all  those  duties  of  love,  confi- 
dence, reverence,  and  obedience,  which  are  due  to  God  alone. 
2.  That  all  the  distinctive  appellations,  attributes,  and  acts,  of 
a  man,  are  ascribed  to  him.  He  is  called  the  man  Christ  Jesus, 
and  the  Son  of  Man.  Ho  is  said  to  have  been  born  of  a  woman, 
to  have  hungered  and  thirsted,  to  have  bled  and  died.  He 
increased  in  wisdom,  was  ignorant  of  the  day  of  judgment  ;  he 
manifested  all  innocent  human  affections,  and,  in  dying,  com- 
mitted his  soul  unto  God.  3.  He  of  whom  all  divine  perfections, 
and  all  the  attributes  of  our  nature,  are  freely  and  constantly 


456  GOD    IN     CHRIST, 

predicated,  when  speaking  of  himself,  always  says,  I,  Me,  Mine. 
He  is  always  addressed  as  Thou  ;  he  is  always  spoken  of  as  He 
or  Him.  There  is  no  where  the  slightest  intimation  or  manifesta- 
tion of  a  twofold  personality  in  Christ.  There  is  not  a  "  divine 
soul"  with  a  human  soul  inhabiting  the  same  body — {.  e.,  he  was 
not  two  persons.  There  is  but  one  subsistence,  suppositum, 
or  person.  4.  This  one  person  is  often  called  a  man  when  even 
divine  acts  or  perfections  are  attributed  to  him.  It  is  the  Son 
of  Man  who  is  to  awake  the  dead,  to  summon  all  nations,  and 
to  sit  in  judgment  on  all  men.  It  is  the  Son  of  Man  who  was 
in  heaven  before  his  advent,  and  who,  while  on  earth,  was  still 
in  heaven.  On  the  other  hand,  he  is  often  called  Grod  when  the 
things  predicated  of  him  are  human.  The  Lord  of  Glory  was 
crucified.  He  who  was  in  the  beginning  with  God,  who  was  the 
true  God  and  eternal  life,  was  seen  and  handled.  Again,  the 
subject  does  not  change  though  the  predicates  do.  Thus  in  the 
first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  it  is  said  of  the  Son  : 
1.  That  he  is  the  brightness  of  the  Father's  glory,  and  the  ex- 
press image  of  his  substance.  2.  That  he  upholds  all  things  by 
the  word  of  his  power.  3.  That  by  (the  offering  of)  himself  he 
made  purification  of  sin.  4.  That  he  is  set  down  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  majesty  on  high.  Here  the  possession  of  a  divine 
nature,  the  exercise  of  almighty  power,  dying  as  an  offering 
for  sin,  and  exaltation  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  are  all  pre- 
dicated of  one  and  the  same  subject.  In  like  manner,  in  the 
second  chapter  of  the  Philippians,  it  is  said.  He  who  was  in  the 
form  of  God,  and  entitled  to  equality  with  God,  Avas  found  in 
fashion  as  man,  humbled  himself  so  as  to  become  obedient  unto 
death,  and  is  exalted  above  all  creatures  in  heaven  and  earth. 
Here  equality  with  God,  humanity,  humiliation,  and  exaltation, 
are  predicated  of  the  same  subject.  Such  representations  are  not 
peculiar  to  the  New  Testament.  In  all  the  Messianic  predic- 
tions, he  who  is  declared  to  be  the  mighty  God  and  everlasting 
Father,  is  said  to  be  born,  and  to  have  a  government  assigned 
him.  On  one  page  he  is  called  Jehovah,  whose  glory  fills  the 
earth,  and  on  the  next  a  man  of  sorrow  and  acquainted  with 
grief. 

In  framing  a  comprehensive  statement  of  these  facts,  it  will 
not  do  to  say,  that  Christ  was  a  mere  man,  for  this  is  inconsist- 
ent with  the  divine  perfections  and  honor  ascribed  to  him.     It 


GOD    IN    CHRIST,  457 

will  not  do  to  say  that  he  is  simply  God,  for  that  is  inconsistent 
with  his  manifest  humanity.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  he  is 
God  and  a  man  as  two  distinct  substances,  for  he  stands  forth 
in  the  evangelical  history  as  manifestly  one  person,  as  does 
Peter  or  John.  The  only  thing  that  can  be  said  is,  that  "  The 
eternal  Son  of  God  became  man  by  taking  to  himself  a  true 
body  and  a  reasonable  soul,  and  so  was  and  continues  to  be  God 
and  man,  in  two  distinct  natures,  and  one  person  forever."  This 
is  the  substance  of  the  Nicene  and  Athanasian  creeds  so  far  as 
they  relate  to  the  person  of  Christ.  It  will  be  observed  how  little 
this  statement  includes  beyond  the  undeniable  facts  of  the  case. 
It  asserts  that  there  is  in  Christ  a  divine  nature,  because  divine 
perfections,  authority,  and  works  of  necessity  suppose  such  a 
nature.  It  asserts  that  he  has  a  human  nature,  because  he  is 
not  only  called  a  man,  but  all  the  attributes  of  our  nature  are 
ascribed  to  him.  And  it  asserts  that  he  is  one  person  because  he 
always  so  speaks  of  himself,  and  is  so  spoken  of  by  the  sacred 
writers.  The  church  doctrine,  therefore,  on  this  subject,  is  clearly 
the  doctrine  of  the  Bible. 

Before  adverting  for  a  moment  to  the  objections  which  Dr. 
Bushnell  urges  to  this  view  of  the  person  of  Christ,  we  remark 
on  the  unreasonableness  of  the  demand  which  he  makes,  when 
attacking  the  church  doctrine,  that  all  obscurity  should  be  ban- 
ished from  this  subject.  The  union  between  the  soul  and  body, 
with  all  the  advantages  of  its  lying  within  the  domain  of  con- 
sciousness and  the  sphere  of  constant  observation,  is  an  impene- 
trable mystery.  Dr.  Bushnell  can  understand  it  as  little  as  he 
can  understand  the  relation  between  the  divine  and  human  na- 
tures of  Christ.  It  is  therefore  glaringly  unreasouable  and  rebel- 
lious against  God,  to  reject  what  he  has  revealed  on  this  subject 
because  it  is  a  mystery,  and  pre-eminently  the  great  mystery  of 
the  gospel. 

Our  author  objects  that  the  doctrine  of  two  natures  in  Christ 
"  does  an  affront  to  the  plain  language  of  the  Scripture.  For  the 
Scripture  does  not  say  that  a  certain  human  soul  called  Jesus 
born  as  such  of  Mary,  obeyed  and  suffered,  but  it  says  in  the 
boldest  manner,  that  he  who  was  in  the  form  of  God  humbled 
himself  and  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the 
cross.  A  declaration  the  very  point  of  which  is,  not  that  the 
man  Jesus  was  a  being  under  human  limitations,  bat  that  he 


458  GOD    IN    CHRIBT. 

who  was  in  the  form  of  Grod,  the  real  divinity,  came  into  the 
finite,  and  was  subject  to  human  conditions."  P.  153,  In  an- 
swer to  this  objection  we  would  remark,  1.  That  it  is  one  of 
the  plainest  rules  of  interpretation  that  when  any  thing  is  predi- 
cated of  a  subject  inconsistent  with  its  known  and  admitted 
nature,  such  predicate  cannot  be  referred  directly  to  the  subject. 
It  must  either  be  understood  figuratively,  or  in  reference,  not  to 
the  subject  itself,  but  to  something  intimately  connected  with  it. 
If  it  is  said  of  a  man  that  he  roars,  or  that  he  flies,  or  that  he  is 
shabby,  these  things  are  necessarily  understood  in  a  way  con- 
sistent with  the  known  and  admitted  nature  of  man.  If  it  is 
said  he  is  blind,  or  deaf,  or  lame,  of  necessity,  again,  this  is  un- 
derstood of  his  body  and  not  of  his  spirit.  In  like  manner  when 
it  is  said  of  God,  that  he  sees,  hears,  has  hands,  eyes,  or  ears, 
or  that  he  is  angry,  or  that  he  is  aggrieved,  or  that  he  enquires 
and  searches  out,  all  these  declarations  are  universally  under- 
stood in  consistency  with  the  known  and  admitted  nature  of  the 
Supreme  Being.  By  a  like  necessity,  and  with  as  little  violence 
to  any  correct  rule  of  interpretation,  when  any  thing  is  affirmed 
of  Christ  that  implies  limitation,  whether  ignorance,  obedience, 
or  suffering,  it  must  be  understood,  not  of  "  the  real  divinity," 
but  of  his  limited  nature.  It  is  only,  therefore,  by  violating  a 
principle  of  interpretation  universally  recognized  and  admitted, 
that  the  objection  under  consideration  can  be  sustained,  2.  It 
was  shown  to  be  a  constant  usage  of  Scripture  to  predicate 
of  Christ,  whatever  can  be  predicated  of  either  of  the  natures 
united  in  his  person.  Of  man  may  be  affirmed  any  thing  that 
is  true  either  of  his  soul  or  of  his  body.  He  may  be  said  to  be 
mortal  or  immortal  ;  to  be  a  spirit  created  in  the  image  of  God, 
and  to  be  a  child  of  the  dust.  And  still  further,  he  is  often 
designated  as  a  spirit,  when  what  is  affirmed  of  him  is  true 
only  of  his  animal  nature.  We  speak  of  rational  and  immortal 
beings  as  given  up  to  gluttony  and  drunkenness,  without  mean- 
ing to  affirm  that  the  immortal  soul  can  eat  and  drink.  Why 
then,  when  it  is  said  of  the  blessed  Saviour,  that  ho  suffered 
and  obeyed,  must  it  be  understood  of  the  "  real  divinity  ?"  If  Dr. 
Bushnell  means  to  be  consistent,  he  must  not  only  assert  that  the 
deity  suffers,  but  that  God  can  be  pierced  with  nads  and  spear. 
It  was  the  Lord  of  Glory  who  was  crucified.  They  shall  look  on 
me  whom  they  have  pierced,  said  the  eternal  Jehovah.     Does  our 


GOD    IN    CHRIST.  459 

author  mean  to  affirm  that  it  was  the  "  real  divinity"  that  was 
nailed  to  the  cross,  and  thrust  through  with  a  spear  ? 

3,  The  principle  of  interpretation  on  which  the  objection  is 
founded  would  prove  that  human  nature  is  infinite  and  eternal. 
If  because  the  Scriptures  say  that  he  who  was  in  the  form  of  Grod 
became  obedient  unto  death,  it  follows  that  the  "  real  divinity" 
died  ;  then  the  assertion  that  the  Son  of  Man  was  in  heaven  be- 
fore his  advent,  and  in  heaven  while  on  earth,  proves  that  human 
nature  has  the  attributes  of  eternity  and  omnipresence.  The 
Bible  tells  us  that  the  Son  of  God  assumed  our  nature,  or  took 
part  of  flesh  and  blood,  in  order  that  he  might  be  a  merciful  and 
faithful  high-priest,  able  to  sympathize  in  the  infirmities  of  his 
people  ;  but  whence  the  necessity  of  his  assuming  flesh  and  blood, 
if  the  divine  nature  can  sufi"er  and  obey  ?  It  is  really  to  deny 
Grod  to  aflirm  of  him  what  is  absolutely  incompatible  with  his 
divine  perfections.  It  is  a  virtual  denial  of  God,  therefore,  to 
affirm  that  the  "  real  divinity,"  is  ignorant,  obeys,  and  dies.  Let 
the  Bible  be  interpreted  on  the  same  principle  gn  which  the  lan- 
guage of  common  life  is  understood,  and  there  will  be  no  more 
difficulty  in  comprehending  the  declaration  that  the  Lord  of 
Glory  was  crucified,  than  the  assertion  concerning  man,  Dust 
thou  art,  and  unto  dust  thou  shalt  return.  Is  the  "  Thou"  in 
man,  the  interior  person,  dust  ?  Dr.  Bushnell  must  say,  yes,  and 
the  affirmation  would  be  as  rational  as  his  assertion  that  the 
divinity  in  Christ  became  subject  to  the  "  human  conditions"  of 
ignorance  and  sorrow. 

Another  objection  is  thus  presented.  The  common  doctrine 
"virtually  denies  any  real  unity  between  the  human  and  the  divine, 
and  substitutes  collocation  or  copartnership  for  unity."  "  The 
whole  work  of  Christ,  as  a  subject,  suffering  Redeemer,  is  thrown 
upon  the  human  side  of  his  nature,  and  the  divine  side  standing 
thus  aloof  incommunicably  distant,  has  nothing  in  fact  to  do  with 
the  transaction,  other  than  to  be  a  spectator."  P.  155.  There 
would  be  as  much  truth  and  reason  in  the  assertion,  that  the 
spiritual,  the  rational,  and  immortal  part  of  a  dying  martyr,  was 
a  mere  spectator  of  the  sufierings  of  his  body.  It  is  the  martyr 
who  suflfers,  though  the  immaterial  spirit  cannot  be  burnt  or 
lacerated.  With  equal  truth,  it  is  the  Lord  of  Glory  who  died 
upon  the  cross,  and  the  Son  of  God  who  poured  out  his  soul  unto 
death,  though  we  hold  it  blasphemy  to  say  it  was  the  divine 


460  GOD    IN    CHRIST, 

nature  as  such,  the  "  real  divinity"  in  Christ,  that  was  subject  to 
the  limitations  and  sorrows  of  humanity.  Dr.  Bushnell  says  a 
hypostatical  union,  i.  e.,  such  an  union  between  the  human  and 
divine  as  to  constitute  one  person,  is  mere  collation.  Is  the  union 
of  soul  and  body  in  one  person,  mere  collation  ?  If  it  is  a  man 
who  suffers  when  his  body  is  injured,  no  less  truly  was  it  the  Son 
of  Grod  who  suffered,  when  his  sacred  body  was  lacerated  by  the 
scourge,  or  pierced  with  nails.  The  acts  of  Christ,  for  the  sake 
of  clearness,  are  referred  to  three  classes.  The  purely  divine,  such 
as  the  creation  of  the  world  ;  the  purely  human,  such  as  walking  or 
sleeping  ;  the  theanthropical,  such  as  his  whole  work  as  media- 
tor, all  he  did  and  suffered  for  the  redemption  of  the  world.  It 
was  not  the  obedience  or  death  of  a  man,  by  which  our  redemp- 
tion was  effected  ;  but  the  obedience  and  sufferings  of  the  Son 
of  Grod.  Christ,  be  it  remembered,  is  not  a  human  person  in- 
vested with  certain  divine  perfections  and  prerogatives.  Nor  was 
he  a  human  person  with  whom  a  divine  person  dwelt  in  a  manner 
analogous  to  God's  presence  in  his  prophets  or  his  people  ;  or  to 
the  indwelling  of  demons  in  the  case  of  the  possessed.  He  was 
a  divine  person  with  a  human  nature,  and  therefore  everything 
true  of  that  nature  may  be  predicated  of  that  divine  person, 
just  as  freely  as  every  thing  true  of  our  material  bodies  may  be 
predicated  of  us,  whose  real  personality  is  an  immaterial  spirit. 
In  some  feeble  analogy  to  the  three  classes  of  the  acts  of  Christ, 
above  referred  to,  is  a  similar  classification  of  human  actions. 
Some  are  purely  bodily,  as  the  pulsations  of  the  heart  ;  others 
are  purely  mental,  as  thought  ;  others  are  mixed,  as  sensation, 
or  voluntary  muscular  action,  or  the  emotions  of  shame,  fear,  &c. 
It  is  absurd  to  confound  all  these,  and  to  assert  that  the  spirit 
has  a  pulse.  It  is  no  less  absurd  so  to  separate  them,  as  to  say  any 
one  of  these  kinds  of  actions  is  not  the  activity  of  the  man.  In 
asserting,  then,  a  personal  union,  between  the  two  natures  in  Christ, 
the  church  asserts  a  real  union,  not  confounding,  but  uniting 
them,  so  that  the  acts  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  are  as  truly 
the  acts  of  the  Son  of  God,  as  the  acts  of  our  bodies  are  our 
acts.  All  those  objections,  therefore,  founded  on  the  assumption 
that  the  common  doctrine  provides  no  explanation  of  the  media- 
torial work,  representing  it,  after  all,  as  the  work  of  a  mere  man, 
are  destitute  of  foundation.  It  was  because  the  divine  nature, 
as  such,  could  neither  suffer  nor  obey,  that  the  Son  of  God  as- 


GOD     IN     CHRIST.  461 

sumed  a  nature  capable  of  such  obedience  and  suffering,  but  the 
assumption  of  that  nature  into  personal  union  with  himself 
made  the  nature  His,  and  therefore  the  obedience  and  sufferings 
were  also  His.  It  is  right  to  say,  God  purchased  the  church  with 
his  own  blood, 

A  third  objection  is,  that  while  separate  activity  is  made  a 
proof  of  the  distinct  personality  of  the  Son  and  Spirit,  it  is  not 
allowed  to  be  a  proof  of  the  distinct  personality  of  the  human 
nature  of  Christ.  What  in  the  Godhead  is  affirmed  to  be  evi- 
dence of  a  distinction  of  persons,  is  denied  to  be  sufficient  evidence 
of  such  distinction  in  the  reference  to  the  two  natures  in  Christ. 
Or,  to  state  the  case  stiQ  more  strongly,  we  ascribe  separate  intelli- 
gence and  will  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  and  deny  it  to  be 
a  person  ;  though  we  dare  not  say  there  are  three  intelligences 
and  wills  in  God,  and  still  insist  there  are  three  persons  in  the 
Godhead. 

The  simple  and  sufficient  answer  to  this  objection  is  that  in  the 
Bible,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  are  distinguished  as  separate 
persons,  and  the  two  natures  in  Christ  are  not  so  distinguished. 
This  is  reason  enough  to  justify  the  church  in  refusing  to  consider 
even  separate  inteUigence  and  will,  in  the  one  case,  proof  of  dis- 
tinct personality  ;  while,  in  the  other,  identity  of  intelligence  and 
will  is  affirmed  to  be  consistent  with  diversity  of  person.  The 
fact  is  plain  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  are  distinguished  as 
persons  ;  the  one  sends  and  another  ,is  sent  ;  the  one  promises 
the  other  engages,  the  one  says  I,  the  other  Thou.  It  is  not  less 
plain,  that  the  two  natures  of  Christ  are  not  thus  distinguished. 
The  one  nature  does  not  address  the  other ;  the  one  does  not 
send  the  other  ;  neither  does  the  one  say  I  and  Thou  in  reference 
to  the  other.  There  is  not  only  the  absence  of  all  evidence  of  dis- 
tinct personality,  but  there  is  also  the  direct,  manifold,  and 
uniform  assertion  of  unity  of  person.  There  is  nothing  about 
Christ  more  perfectly  undeniable  than  this,  and,  therefore,  there 
never  has  been  even  a  heresy  in  the  church  (the  doubtful  case  of 
the  Nestorians  excepted)  ascribing  a  two-fold  personality  to  the 
Kedeemer,  It  is  one  and  the  same  person  of  whom  birth,  life, 
death,  eternity,  omniscience,  omnipotence,  and  all  other  attributes, 
human  and  divine,  are  predicated.  So  far,  therefore,  as  the 
Scriptures  are  concerned,  there  is  the  greatest  possible  difference 
between  the  relation  in  which  the  distinctions  of  the  Trinity 


462  GOD    IN     CHRIST. 

stand  to  each  other,  and  the  mutual  relations  of  the  two  natures 
in  Christ.  In  the  one  case,  the  distinction  is  personal,  in  the 
other  it  is  not.  If  there  is  any  contradiction  here  it  is  chargeable 
on  the  Bible  itself 

But  it  may  still  be  said  that  we  must  frame  a  definition  of  per- 
son which  shall  not  involve  the  affirmation  and  denial  of  the 
same  proposition.  We  cannot  say  separate  intelligent  agency 
constitutes  or  evinces  personality,  and  then  ascribe  such  agency 
to  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  while  we  deny  it  to  be  a  person. 
Very  true.  We  do  not  deny  that  theologians  often  fail  in  their 
definitions  ;  we  should  be  satisfied  with  saying,  that  the  distinc- 
tions in  the  God-head  are  such  as  to  lay  an  adequate  founda- 
tion for  the  reciprocal  use  of  the  pronouns,  I,  Thou,  He  ;  and 
that  the  distinction  between  the  two  natures  in  Christ  does  not. 
If  asked  where  Hes  the  difference,  since  in  both  cases  there  is 
separate  activity  .^  we  answer,  no  one  can  tell.  We  may  say 
indeed,  that  distinct  subsistence  is  essential  to  personality,  and 
that  such  subsistence  cannot  be  predicated  of  the  human  nature 
of  Christ,  but  is  predicable  of  the  distinctions  in  the  God-head. 
It  is  not,  therefore,  all  kinds  of  separate  activity  which  imply 
personality,  but  only  such  as  involves  distinct  subsistence,  show- 
ing that  the  source  of  the  activity  is  an  agent,  and  not  merely  a 
power/ 

The  following  illustration  of  this  subject  is  not  designed  to  ex- 
plain it  :  a  mystery  is  not  capable  of  explanation.  It  is  designed 
merely  to  show  how  much  of  the  same  obscurity  overhangs  other 
subjects  about  which  we  give  ourselves  very  little  trouble.  We 
may,  for  the  sake  of  illustration,  assume  the  truth  of  the  Plato- 
nic doctrine  which  ascribes  to  man  a  body,  an  animal  soul,  and 
an  immortal  spirit.  This  is  not  a  scriptural  distinction,  though 
it  is  not  obviously  absurd,  and,  if  a  matter  of  revelation,  would 
be  cheerfully  admitted.  What,  however,  is  involved  in  this  doc- 
trine .^  There  is  a  unity  of  person  in  man,  and  yet  three  dis- 
tinct activities  ;  that  of  the  body  in  the  processes  of  respiration 
and  digestion  ;  that  of  the  animal  soul,  in  all  mere  sensations 
and  instincts ;  and  that  of  the  spirit,  in  all  intellectual  and  moral 

'  Dr.  Bushnell  has  no  great  right  to  make  a  wry  face  at  Trinitarians  for  asserting 
that  separate  intelligence  and  will  do  not  necessarily  infer  personality,  since  he  has 
begun  to  swallow  a  philosophy  which  asserts  the  single  personality  of  the  human 
race,  though  each  man  has  liis  own  intelligence,  will  and  consciousness. 


GOD    IN     CHRIST.  463 

action.  The  animal  soul  is  not  a  person,  it  lias  no  distinct  sub- 
sistence, though,  it  may  have  its  activity  and  even  its  own  con- 
sciousness, as  in  the  case  of  brutes.  Now  if  there  is  no  contradic- 
tion involved  in  this  view  of  the  nature  of  man  ;  if  the  animal 
soul  may  have  its  activity  and  life  in  personal  union  with  the  in- 
telligent spirit,  and  yet  that  soul  be  not  a  person,  then  the  human 
nature  of  Clirist  may  have  its  activity,  in  personal  union  with 
the  Logos,  and  yet  not  be  a  person.  We  place  little  stress,  how- 
ever, on  any  such  illustrations.  Our  faith  rests  on  the  plain 
declarations  of  Scripture.  God  is  infinite,  omniscient,  and  al- 
mighty, and  therefore  of  him  no  limitation  can  be  predicated, 
whether  ignorance  or  weakness  ;  of  Christ  is  predicated  all  the 
perfections  of  God  and  all  the  attributes  of  man,  and  therefore 
there  is  in  him  both  a  divine  and  human  nature  ;  and  notwith- 
standing the  possession  of  this  twofold  nature,  he  is  but  one 
person.  It  is  not  necessary  to  our  faith  that  we  should  under- 
stand this.  We  can  understand  it  just  as  well  as  we  understand 
the  mysteries  of  our  own  nature,  or  the  attributes  of  God.  After 
all,  the  difficulty  is  not  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  or  the  In- 
carnation, but  in  Theism,  the  most  certain  and  essential,  and  yet 
the  most  incomprehensible  of  all  truths. 

But  if  we  insist  on  acknowledging  only  one  nature  in  Christ, 
how  are  we  to  conceive  of  his  person  ?  The  following  would 
seem  to  be  the  only  possible  modes  in  which  he  can  be  regarded  : 

1.  That  his  one  nature  is  human,  and  that  he  was  a  mere  man. 

2.  That  his  one  nature  was  divine  ;  then  it  may  be  assumed, 
with  the  Doceta3,  that  this  human  appearance  is  but  a  phan- 
tasm ;  or,  with  the  Apollinarians,  that  he  had  a  real  body,  but 
not  a  rational  soul.  3.  That  his  one  nature  was  neither  divine 
nor  human,  but  theantliropical,  the  two  united  into  one,  accord- 
ing to  the  Eutychean  notion.  4.  That  the  human  and  divine  are 
identical,  which  is  the  doctrine  of  the  new  philosophy.  Every 
one  of  these  views,  incompatible  as  they  obviously  are.  Dr.  Bush- 
nell  adopts  by  turns,  except  the  first. 

He  adopts,  or  at  least  dallies  with,  the  doctrine  of  the  DocetaB, 
tliat  the  whole  manifestation  of  Christ  was  a  mere  Theophany. 
To  assert  the  union  of  two  natures  in  the  Redeemer,  or  to  at- 
tempt any  precise  statement  of  the  constitution  of  his  person,  he 
says,  is  as  though  Abraham,  "  after  he  had  entertained  as  a  guest 
the  Jehovah  Angel,  or  Angel  of  the  Lord,  instead  of  receiving  his 


464  GOD    IN     CHRIST. 

message,  had  fallen  to  inquiring  into  the  digestive  process  of 
the  Angel ;"  or,  "  as  if  Moses,  when  he  saw  the  burning  bush, 
had  fallen  to  speculating  about  the  fire."  Thus  those  who  "  live 
in  their  logic,"  exclaim  :  "  See  Christ  obeys  and  suffers  ;  how 
can  the  subject  be  supreme — the  suffering  man  the  impassible 
God  !"  And  then,  in  one  of  those  exquisite  illustrations,  which, 
as  our  Saviour  says  of  another  kind  of  lying  wonders,  would,  if 
it  were  possible,  deceive  the  very  elect,  he  adds  :  "  Indeed  you 
may  figure  this  whole  tribe  of  sophisters  as  a  man  standing  before 
that  most  beautiful  and  wondrous  work  of  art,  the  '  Beatified 
Spirit'  of  Guido,  and  there  commencing  a  quarrel  with  the  artist, 
that  he  should  be  so  absurd  as  to  think  of  making  a  beatified 
spirit  out  of  mere  linseed,  ochres  and  oxides  !  Would  it  not  be 
more  dignified  to  let  the  pigments  go,  and  take  the  expression  of 
the  canvas  ?  Just  so  (!)  are  the  human  personality,  the  obedi- 
ent, subject,  suffering  state  of  Jesus,  all  to  be  taken  as  colors  of 
the  divine,  and  we  are  not  to  fool  ourselves  in  practising  our  logic 
on  the  colors,  but  to  seize  at  once  upon  the  divine  import  and 
significance  thereof ;  ascending  thus  to  the  heart  of  God,  there 
to  rest,  in  the  vision  of  his  beatific  glory."  P.  160.  The  mean- 
ing of  this  is,  that  as  the  value  and  power  of  a  picture  is  in  "  the 
expression  of  the  canvas,"  so  the  power  of  Christ  is  in  "  what  he 
expresses."  In  order  to  this  expression,  however,  there  is  no 
need  of  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul  ;  a  theophany,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Jehovah  Angel,  is  all  that  is  necessary.  We  ac- 
cept this  illustration  as  to  one  point.  There  is  all  the  difference 
between  the  Christ  of  the  Bible  and  the  Christ  of  Dr.  Bushnell, 
that  there  is  between  an  Ecce  Homo  and  the  living  incarnate  God. 
In  a  few  pages  further  on,  the  author  rejects  this  view  of  the 
subject,  and  says  :  "  Christ  is  no  such  theophany,  no  such  casual, 
unhistorical  being  as  the  Jehovah  Angel  who  visited  Abraham." 
P.  165.  So  unsteady,  however,  is  his  tread,  that  in  a  few  more 
steps  he  falls  again  into  the  same  mode  of  representation.  On 
p.  172,  he  says  :  '■'■Just  as  the  Logos  is  incarnated  in  the  flesh, 
so  the  Spirit  makes  his  advent  under  physical  signs,  appropriate 
to  his  office,  coming  in  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  tipping  the  heads 
of  an  assembly  with  lambent  flames,  &c.,  &c."  The  Logos,  there- 
fore, was  no  more  really  incarnate  than  the  Spirit  was  incorporate 
in  the  dove,  the  wind,  or  the  tongues  of  fire — all  is  appearance, 
expression. 


GOD    IN    CHRIST.  465 

But  if  Dr.  Bushnell  teaches  tlie  doctrine  of  the  Docetee,  he 
still  more  distinctly  avows  that  of  the  Apollinarians.  The 
main  point  in  their  theory  on  this  subject  is,  that  Christ  had 
a  human  body,  but  not  a  human  soul  ;  the  Logos  in  him  taking 
the  place  of  the  intelligent  Spirit.  The  nature  of  our  author's 
view  of  the  constitution  of  Christ's  person,  is  best  learned  from 
the  answers  which  he  gives  to  the  objections  which  he  sees  will 
be  made  against  it.  The  first  objection  is,  that  "  the  infinite 
God  is  represented  as  dwelling  in  a  finite  human  person,  sub- 
ject to  its  limitations  and  even  to  its  evils ;  and  this  is  incredible 
— an  insult  to  reason."  P.  148.  His  answer  is,  "  It  no  more 
follows  that  a  human  body  measures  God,  when  revealed 
through  it,  than  that  a  star,  a  tree,  or  an  insect,  measures  him, 
when  he  is  revealed  through  that."  P.  152.  A  second  objection 
is,  Christ  grew  in  wisdom  and  knowledge.  This  he  answers 
by  saying  :  1.  "  That  the  language  may  well  enough  be  taken  as 
language  of  external  description  merely."  Or,  2.  "  If  the  divine 
was  manifested  in  the  ways  of  a  child,  it  creates  no  difiiculty 
which  does  not  exist  when  it  is  manifested  in  the  ways  of  a  man 
or  a  world."  It  is  as  repugnant,  he  says,  to  Christ's  proper  Deity, 
to  reason  and  think,  as  to  say  he  learns  or  grows  in  knowledge. 
P.  153.  A  third  objection  is,  that  Christ  obeys,  worships,  and 
suffers.  He  says,  the  Trinitarian  answer  to  this  objection — viz., 
that  these  things  are  to  be  understood  of  the  human  soul  of 
Christ,  is  an  affront  to  the  Scriptures,  which  assert  that  "  the 
real  divinity  came  into  the  finite  and  was  subject  to  human  con- 
ditions." P.  154.  When  we  see  the  Absolute  Being  "  under  the 
conditions  of  increase,  obedience,  worship,  sufiering,  we  have 
nothing  to  do  but  to  ask  what  is  here  expressed,  and,  as  long  as 
we  do  that,  we  shall  have  no  difficulty."  P.  156.  All  is  a 
mockery  and  show — even  the  agony  in  the  garden,  the  calling 
on  God  in  Gethsemane  and  on  the  cross,  was,  we  tremble  as  we 
write,  a  pantomime,  in  which  the  infinite  God  was  the  actor. 
To  such  depths  does  a  man  sink  when,  inflated  with  self-conceit, 
he  pretends  to  be  wise  above  that  which  is  written.  "  Of  what 
BO  great  consequence  to  us,"  he  asks,  "  are  the  humanities  of  a 
mere  human  soul  ?  The  very  thing  we  want  is  to  find  God  is 
moved  by  such  humanities — touched  with  a  feeling  of  our  infir- 
mities." P.  165. 

These   passages   teach  distinctly  the   Apollinarian   doctrine. 

30 


466  GODINCHRIST. 

They  deny  that  there  are  two  distinct  natures  in  Christ  ;  and 
they  affirm  that  ignorance,  weakness,  obedience,  worshipping 
and  suffering,  are  to  be  predicated  of  the  Logos,  the  Deity,  the 
divine  nature  as  such.  Thus  far  the  doctrine  taught  in  this  book 
is  little  more  than  the  re-introduction,  with  great  pomp  and  cir- 
cumstance, of  an  effete  and  half-forgotten  heresy.  It  is  the  bring- 
ing back  a  dead  Napoleon  to  the  Invalides. 

Dr.  Bushnell  next  teaches  the  Eutychean  doctrine.  Eutyches 
taufirht  that  the  divine  and  human  were  so  united  in  Christ  as 
to  become  one  nature  as  well  as  one  person.  He  taught,  as 
Dr.  Bushnell  does,  that  two  nature  simply  two  persons.  ('O  dvo 
XsjMv  (f)voeig  Svo  Xtyu  vlov^.)  Before  the  union  there  were  two 
natures  ;  after  it,  only  one.  He  acknowledged,  therefore,  in 
Christ,  but  one  life,  intelligence,  and  will.  This,  after  all,  ap- 
pears to  be  the  doctrine  which  Dr.  Bushnell  is  really  aiming  at. 

We  have  Eutycheanism  distinctly  asserted,  for  example,  on  p. 
154.  The  common  doctrine,  he  says,  "virtually  denies  any 
real  unity  between  the  human  and  divine,  and  substitutes  col- 
location, co-partnership  for  unity."  "  Instead  of  a  person 
whose  nature  is  the  unity  of  the  divine  and  the  human,  we 
have,"  he  adds,  "  two  distinct  persons,  between  whom  our 
thoughts  are  constantly  alternating  ;  referring  this  to  one,  and 
that  to  the  other,  and  imagining,  all  the  while,  not  a  union  of 
the  two,  in  which  our  possible  union  with  Grod  is  signified  and 
sealed  forever,  but  a  practical,  historical  assertion  of  his  incom- 
municability  thrust  upon  our  notice."  In  these,  among  other 
passages,  we  have  the  doctrine,  not  that  the  divine  nature  or 
Logos,  was  in  the  place  of  the  human  soul,  but  that  the  divine  and 
human  natures  were  so  united  as  to  make  one,  neither  human 
nor  divine,  but,  as  our  author  calls  it,  "  the  divine  human." 

All  these  forms  of  doctrine  respecting  the  person  of  Christ, 
sprang  up  in  the  church.  They  all  suppose  the  doctrine  of  a 
personal  God  distinct  from  the  world.  They  take  for  granted 
a  real  creation  in  time.  They  assume  a  distinction  between 
God  and  man,  as  two  different  natures,  and  between  matter 
and  mind  as  two  substances.  In  man,  therefore,  there  are  two 
substances  or  subjects,  spirit  and  body,  united  in  one  person. 
It  was  at  a  later  period  the  heathen  doctrine  found  its  way  into 
the  church,  that  there  is  but  one  substance,  intelligence,  and  life 
in  the  universe  {'v  uovov  to  6v  elvai);  a  doctrine  which  identifies 


GOD    IN     CHRIST.  467 

God  and  the  world ;  which  denies  any  extra-mundane  deity, 
any  proper  creation,  any  real  distinction  between  God  and  man. 
This  is  the  Atheistic  doctrine  which  has  been  revived  in  our 
day,  and  which  has  been,  and  still  is,  taught  by  deceivers  and 
the  deceived,  in  the  church,  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  or  at 
least  as  consistent  with  it.  The  new  philosophy  teaches,  as 
befoi-e  stated,  that  the  absolute  God  is  nothing  ;  he  exists  only 
as  he  is  revealed.  He  produces  himself  in  the  world  ;  or,  in  the 
world  he  becomes  objective  to  himself,  and  thus  self-conscious. 
The  human  race  is  the  highest  form  of  the  world,  and,  conse- 
quently the  highest  development  of  God.  Men  are  God  as  self- 
conscious.  What  the  Bible  says  of  the  Son  as  being  God,  one 
with  the  Father,  his  image,  &c.,  is  to  be  understood  of  the  race. 
God  is  but  the  substance  or  power  of  which  all  phenomena  are 
the  manifestations.  All  life  is  God's  life,  all  action  is  his  acting ; 
there  is  no  liberty,  no  sin,  no  immortality.  The  race  is  immortal, 
but  not  the  individuals  ;  they  succeed  each  other  as  the  waves  of 
the  sea,  or  the  leaves  of  the  forest.  This  is  the  worst  form  of 
Atheism  ;  for  it  not  only  denies  God,  but  deifies  man,  and  de- 
stroys all  morality  in  its  very  principle. 

Schleiermacher,  in  his  later  writings,  does  not  go  all  these 
lengths.  His  system  however  is  founded  on  the  real  identity  of 
God  and  the  world,  the  human  and  divine.'  It  makes  creation 
eternal  and  necessary.  It  destroys  entirely  human  liberty  and 
responsibility.  It  admits  nothing  as  sin  except  to  the  con- 
sciousness and  apprehension  of  the  sinner.  And  the  personal 
immortality  of  the  soul  it  repudiates  ;  i.  e.,  his  system  leads  to 
its  rejection  ;  but  out  of  deference  to  Christ  it  is  admitted  as  a 
fact.  With  him  the  divine  Being,  as  such,  is  the  one  hidden 
God  ;  the  Trinity  is  the  manifested  God  ;  the  Father  is  God  as 
manifested  in  the  world  ;  the  Son,  God  as  manifested  in  Christ ; 
and  the  Spirit,  God  as  manifested  in  the  church.  With  this 
view  of  the  Trinity  a   corresponding  view   of  the   person   of 

'  DoRNER,  the  disciple  of  Schleiermacher,  gives  as  his  reason  for  associating  him 
with  Schelling  and  Hegel,  that  "  he  undoubtedly  proceeds  on  the  assumption  of  the 
essential  unity  of  God  and  man,  though  he  did  not  hold  that  substantial  Panthe- 
ism in  which  subjectivity  is  a  mere  accident."  See  his  Christologie,  p.  487.  Schleier- 
macher was  educated  a  Moravian.  His  philosophy  was  pantheistical ;  with  hia 
philosophy  his  early  religious  convictions  kept  up  a  continual  struggle,  and,  as  it  is 
hoped,  ultimately  gained  the  victory.  This,  however,  does  not  alter  the  nature  of 
his  system . 


468  GOD    IN    CHRIST. 

Christ  is  necessarily  connected.  The  world  is  one  manifesta- 
tion of  God  ;  God  in  one  form  ;  the  human  race  a  higher  mani- 
festation of  God  ;  which  manifestation,  imperfect  in  Adam  and 
his  posterity,  is  perfected  in  Christ ;  the  creation  begun  in  the 
former  is  completed  in  the  latter.  Christ  is  the  ideal  man,  and, 
as  God  and  man  are  one,  Christ  is  God.  There  are  not  two 
natures  in  Christ,  but  one  only,  a  divine  nature  which  is  truly 
human.  As  men  are  partakers  of  the  imperfect  nature  of  Adam, 
they  are  redeemed  by  partaking  of  the  perfect  nature  of  Christ, 
and  thus  the  incarnation  of  God  is  continued  in  the  church. 
Hence  follows  subjective  justification,  and  rejection  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  atonement  and  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as 
matters  of  course.' 

As  Dr.  Bushnell  adopts  Schleiermacher's  views  of  the  Trinity, 
he  naturally  adopts  his  doctrine  as  to  the  person  of  Christ.  In 
Christ  there  is  but  one  nature  ;  that  nature  is  divine,  "  the  real 
divinity ;"  it  is  also  truly  human,  God  in  human  flesh  is  a  perfect 
man.  He  becomes  incorporated  in  the  history  of  our  race,  and 
thus  redemption  is  efiected.  All  this  we  have  on  page  149  and 
elsewhere.  "  If  God,"  says  our  author,  "were  to  inhabit  such  a 
vehicle  [^.  e.,  a  human  person,]  one  so  fellow  to  ourselves  and 
live  himself  as  a  perfect  character  into  the  biographic  history 
of  the  world,  a  result  would  follow  of  as  great  magnificence  as 
the  creation  of  the  world  itself,  viz.  :  the  incorporation  of  the 
divine  in  the  history  of  the  world — so  a  renovation,  at  last,  of 
the  moral  and  religious  life  of  the  world.  If  now  the  human 
person  will  express  more  of  God  than  the  whole  created  uni- 
verse besides — and  iit  certainly  will  more  of  God's  feeling  and 
character — and  if  a  motive  possessing  as  great  consequence 
as  the  creation  of  the  world  invites  him  to  do  it,  is  it  more 
extravagant  to  believe  that  the  Word  will  become  flesh,  than 
that  the  Word  has  become,  or  produced  in  time  a  material 
universe  ?"  According  to  this  passage  :  The  Word  or  God  be- 
came a  material  universe  ;  (i.  e.,  became  objective  to  himself  in 
the  world,  we  suppose).  In  the  same  sense  he  became  flesh  and 
was  a  "  perfect  character,"  or  a  perfect  man.  As  such  he  became 
biographically,  historically,  or  organically  (all  these  expressions 
are  used),  connected  with  our  race.      The  divine   was   thus 

"  Schleiermacher's  Glaubenslehre  §§.  299—328.  Dorner's  Chriatologie  (Stuttgart 
1839.)  pp.  487— 529. 


GOD    IN     CHRIST.  469 

incorporated  in  the  history  of  the  world  ;  or  in  other  words,  the 
incarnation  of  Grod  is  continued  in  the  church.  This  incorpora- 
tion, or  incarnation,  is  the  source  of  the  renovation  of  the  moral 
and  religious  life  of  the  world.  All  tliis  agrees  with  Schleier- 
macher  to  a  tittle. 

In  accordance  with  this  same  theory  are  such  expressions  as 
the  following,  which  are  of  frequent  occurrence  through  the  work. 
"The  highest  glory  of  the  incarnation,  viz.:  the  union  signified 
and  historically  begun,  between  God  and  man."  P.  156.  Christ 
is  "  an  integral  part,  in  one  view,  of  the  world's  history,  only 
bringing  into  it,  and  setting  into  organic  union  with  it,  the  Eter- 
nal Life."  "  God  manifested  in  the  flesh — historically  united 
with  our  race."  P.  165  ;  and  all  the  other  cant  phrases  of  the 
day,  which  are  designed  and  adapted  to  ensnare  silly  women, 
male  and  female. 

We  think  we  have  made  out  our  case.  Dr.  Bushnell's  book,  in 
our  poor  judgment,  is  a  failure.  It  puUs  down,  but  does  not 
erect.  He  attacks  and  argues  against  the  doctrines  of  the  Trin- 
ity, Incarnation,  and  Atonement,  and  after  all  acknowledges  not 
only  that  they  are  taught  in  Scripture,  but  that  we  are  forced  by 
the  constitution  or  necessities  of  our  nature,  to  conceive  of  them 
in  their  scriptural  form.  He  mixes  up  in  his  volume  the  most 
incongruous  materials.  He  is  Rationalist,  Mystic,  Pantheist, 
Christian,  by  turns,  just  as  the  emergency  demands.  He  is  ex- 
travagant to  the  extreme  of  paradox.  He  adopts,  on  all  the 
subjects  he  discusses,  the  long  exploded  heresies  of  former  centu- 
ries, and  endeavors  to  cover  them  all  with  the  gaudy  mantle  of 
the  new  philosophy.  His  mysticism  spoils  his  rationalism,  and  his 
philosophy  spoils  his  mysticism,  and  is  then,  in  its  turn  spoiled 
by  having  its  essential  element  left  out.  Instead  of  a  real  Trin- 
ity he  gives  us  a  threefold  appearance.  Instead  of  Emmanuel, 
God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  he  gives  us  a  Christ  which  is  either  a 
mere  expression  thrown  on  the  dark  canvas  of  history,  or  a  be- 
ing who  is  neither  God  nor  man.  Instead  of  a  true  propitiation, 
he  bids  us  behold  a  splendid  work  of  art !  These  are  the  doc- 
trines which,  he  says,  "  live  in  their  own  majesty,"  and  for  which 
he  predicts  a  triumph  which  finds  its  appropriate  prefigu ration 
in  nothing  short  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Son  of  God  !  P.  116. 
For  the  honor  of  our  race  we  hope  that  such  a  book  as  this  is 
not  about  to  turn  the  world  upside  down. 


470  GOD    IN    CHRIST. 

We  have  reserved  to  the  close  of  our  review  a  remark,  which 
was  the  first  to  occur  to  us  on  a  perusal  of  these  Discourses.  Dr. 
Bushnell  forgets  that  there  are  certain  doctrines  so  settled  hy  the 
faith  of  the  Church,  that  they  are  no  longer  open  questions. 
They  are  finally  adjudged  and  determined.  If  men  set  aside  the 
Bible,  and  choose  to  speak  or  write  as  philosophers,  tlien  of 
course  the  way  is  open  for  them  to  teach  what  they  please.  But 
for  Christians,  who  acknovvdedge  the  Scriptures  as  their  rule  of 
faith,  there  are  doctrines  which  they  are  bound  to  take  as  settled 
beyond  all  rational  or  innocent  dispute.  This  may  be  regarded 
as  a  popish  sentiment ;  as  a  denial  of  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment, or  an  assertion  of  the  inMlibility  of  the  church.  It  is  very 
far  from  being  either.  Does,  however,  the  objector  think  that  the 
errors  of  Eomanism  rest  on  the  thin  air,  or  are  mere  grotesque 
forms  of  unsubstantial  vapor  ?  If  this  were  so,  they  could  have 
neither  permanence  nor  import.  They  are  aU  sustained  by  an 
inward  truth,  which  gives  them  life  and  power,  despite  of  their 
deformities.  It  is  as  though  a  perfect  statue  had  been  left  un- 
der the  calcareous  dripping  of  a  cavern,  until  deformed  by  in- 
crustations ;  or,  as  if  some  exquisite  work  of  art,  in  church  or 
convent,  had  been  so  daubed  over  by  the  annual  whitewasher,  or 
covered  by  the  dust  of  centuries,  as  to  escape  recognition  ;  but 
which,  when  the  superincumbent  filth  is  removed,  appears  in  all 
its  truth  and  beauty.  The  truth  which  underlies  and  sustains 
the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the  authority  of  the  church  in  matters 
of  faith,  is  this  :  The  Holy  Spirit  dwells  in  the  people  of  God, 
and  leads  them  to  the  saving  knowledge  of  divine  things  :  so 
that  those  who  depart  from  the  faith  of  God's  people,  depart 
from  the  teachings  of  the  Spirit,  and  from  the  source  of  life.  The 
Romish  distortion  of  this  truth  is,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  dwells  in 
the  Pope,  as  the  ultramontanists  say  ;  or  in  the  bishops,  as  the 
Gallican  theologians  say,  and  guides  him  or  them  into  the  infal- 
lible knowledge  of  all  matters  pertaining  to  faith  and  practice. 
They  err  both  as  to  the  subjects  and  object  of  this  divine  guid- 
ance. They  make  the  rulers  of  the  external  church  to  be  its  re- 
cipients, and  its  object  to  render  them  infallible  as  judges  and 
teachers.  Its  true  subjects  are  all  the  sincere  people  of  God,  and 
its  object  is  to  make  them  wise  unto  salvation.  The  ])romise  of 
divine  teaching  no  more  secures  inlallibility  than  the  promise  of 
holiness  secures  perfection  in  this  life.     There  is,  however,  such 


GOD    IN    CHRIST.  471 

a  divine  teaching,  and  its  effect  is  to  bring  the  children  of  God, 
in  all  parts  of  the  world,  and  in  all  ages  of  the  church,  to  unity 
of  faith.  As  an  historical  fact,  they  have  always  and  every- 
where agreed  in  all  points  of  necessary  doctrine.  And  therefore 
to  depart  from  their  faith,  in  such  matters  of  agreement,  is  to 
renounce  the  gospel.  In  some  cases  it  may  be  difficult  to  deter- 
mine what  the  true  people  of  God  have  in  all  ages  believed. 
This  is  an  historical  fact,  which  evinces  itself  more  or  less  dis- 
tinctly, as  all  other  facts  of  history  do.  In  many  cases,  however, 
there  is  and  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  about  the  matter  ;  and 
the  doctrines  which  Dr.  Bushnell  discusses  and  discards,  viz. :  the 
Trinity,  Incarnation,  and  Atonement,  are  precisely  those  in 
which  their  agreement  is  most  certain  and  complete.  It  is  high 
time,  therefore,  it  should  be  universally  agreed  among  Christians, 
that  the  rejection  of  these  doctrines,  as  determined  by  the  faith 
of  the  church,  is  the  rejection  of  Christianity,  and  should  be  so 
regarded  and  treated.  Let  sceptics  and  philosophers  teach  what 
they  please,  or  what  they  dare,  but  it  is  surely  time  to  have  some 
certain  ground  in  Christianity  ;  and  to  put  the  brand  of  universal 
reprobation  on  the  hypocritical  and  wicked  device  of  preaching 
infidelity  in  a  cassock. 

Dr.  Bushnell  is  hke  a  man  who,  wearied  with  the  obscurity  or 
monotony  of  a  crowded  ship,  jumps  overboard,  determined  to 
scull  single-handed  his  Kttle  boat  across  the  ocean.  Or,  he  is 
like  a  man  who  should  leave  the  ark  to  ride  out  the  deluge  on  a 
slimy  log.  Such  madness  excites  nothing  but  commiseration. 
It  is  evident  Dr.  BushneU  does  not  fully  understand  himself.  He 
is  lost,  and  therefore,  often  crosses  his  own  path  ;  and  it  is  to  be 
hoped  that  much  of  the  error  contained  in  his  book  has  not  got 
real  or  permanent  possession  of  his  mind.  He  is  a  poet,  and 
neither  a  philosopher  nor  theologian  ;  a  bright  star,  which  has 
wandered  from  its  orbit,  and  which  must  continue  to  wander, 
unless  it  return  and  obey  the  attraction  of  the  great  central  orb 
— God's  everlasting  word. 


XIV. 

SLAVERY.^ 

EvEKY  one  must  be  sensible  that  a  very  great  change  has, 
within  a  few  years,  been  produced  in  the  feelings,  if  not  in  the 
opinions  of  the  public,  in  relation  to  slavery.  It  is  not  long  since 
the  acknowledgment  was  frequent  at  the  South  and  universal  at 
the  North,  that  it  was  a  great  evil.  It  was  spoken  of  in  the 
slaveholding  States,  as  a  sad  inheritance  fixed  upon  them  by  the 
cupidity  of  the  mother-country  in  spite  of  their  repeated  remon- 
strances. The  known  sentiments  of  Jefferson  were  reiterated 
again  and  again  in  every  part  of  his  native  State  ;  and  some 
of  the  strongest  denunciations  of  this  evil,  and  some  of  the 
most  ardent  aspirations  for  deliverance  from  it  ever  uttered 
in  the  country,  were  pronounced,  but  a  few  years  since,  in  the 
legislature  of  Virginia.  A  proposition  to  call  a  convention,  with 
the  purpose  of  so  amending  the  constitution  of  the  State  as  to 
admit  of  the  general  emancipation  of  the  slaves,  is  said  to  have 
failed  in  the  legislature  of  Kentucky  by  a  single  vote.''  The 
sentiments  of  the  northern  States  had  long  since  been  clearly 
expressed  by  the  abolition  of  slavery  within  their  limits.  That 
the  same  opinions  and  the  same  feelings  continued  to  prevail 
among  them,  may  be  inferred,  not  only  from  the  absence  of  all 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  but  from  various  decisive  indications  of 
a  positive  character.  In  the  year  1828  a  resolution  was  passed 
by  an  almost  unanimous  vote  in  the  legislature  of  Pennsylvania, 
instructing  their  Senators  in  Congress  to  endeavor  to  procure  the 
passage  of  a  law  abolishing  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

'  Slavery.  By  "William  E.  Channing.  Boston :  James  Munroe  and  Company ; 
1835.  pp.  166. 

2  It  is  probable  that  many  reasons  combined  to  make  a  convention  desirable  to 
those  who  voted  for  it.  But  to  get  rid  of  slavery  was  said  to  be  one  of  the  most 
prominent. 


474  SLAVE  BY. 

In  1829  a  similar  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  assembly  of  New 
York.  In  1828  a  petition  to  this  eJSect  was  presented  to  Congress, 
signed  by  one  thousand  inhabitants  of  the  District  itself;  and  the 
House  of  Representatives  instructed  the  proper  committee,  in 
1829,  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  the  measure/  How 
altered  is  the  present  state  of  the  country  !  Instead  of  lamenta- 
tions and  acknowledgments,  we  hear  from  the  South  the  strong- 
est language  of  justification.  And  at  the  North,  opposition  to 
the  proceedings  of  the  anti-slavery  societies  seems  to  be  rapidly 
producing  a  public  feeling  in  favor  of  slavery  itself.  The  free- 
dom of  discussion,  the  liljerty  of  the  press,  and  the  right  of 
assembling  for  consultation,  have  in  some  cases  been  assailed,  and 
in  others  trampled  under  foot  by  popular  violence.  What  has 
produced  this  lamentable  change  ?  No  doubt,  many  circum- 
stances have  combined  in  its  production.  We  think,  however, 
that  all  impartial  observers  must  acknowledge,  that  by  far  the 
most  prominent  cause  is  the  conduct  of  the  abolitionists.  They, 
indeed,  naturally  resist  this  imputation  and  endeavor  to  show  its 
injustice  by  appealing  to  the  fact  that  their  ^opinions  of  slavery 
have  been  entertained  and  expressed  by  many  of  the  best  men 
of  former  days.  This  appeal,  however,  is  by  no  means  satisfac- 
tory. The  evil  in  question  has  been  produced  by  no  mere  ex- 
pression of  opinion.  Had  the  abolitionists  confined  themselves 
to  their  professed  object,  and  endeavored  to  effect  their  purpose 
by  arguments  addressed  to  the  understandings  and  consciences  of 
their  fellow- citizens,  no  man  could  have  had  any  reason  to  com- 
plain. Under  ordinary  circumstances,  such  arguments  as  those 
presented  on  this  subject  in  Dr.  Wayland's  Elements  of  Moral 
Science,  and  in  Dr.  Channing's  recent  publication,  would  have 
been  received  with  respect  and  kindness  in  every  part  of  the 
country.  We  make  this  assertion,  because  the  same  sentiments, 
more  offensively,  and  less  ably  urged,  have  heretofore  been  thus 
received. 

It  is  not  by  argument  that  the  abolitionists  have  produced  the 
present  unhappy  excitement.  Argument  has  not  been  the  cha- 
racteristic of  their  publications.  Denunciations  of  slaveholding, 
as  man-stealing,  robbery,  piracy,  and  worse  than  murder  ;  conse- 
quent vituperation  of  slaveholders  as  knowingly  guilty  of  the 
worst  of  crimes  ;  passionate  appeals  to  the  feelings  of  the  inhabi- 

'  Jay's  Inquiry,  pp.  157,  161. 


SLAVERY.  475 

tants  of  the  nortliern  States  ;  gross  exaggeration  of  the  moral 
and  jDhysical  condition  of  the  slaves,  have  formed  the  staple  of 
their  addresses  to  the  public.  We  do  not  mean  to  say  that  there 
has  been  no  calm  and  Christian  discussion  on  the  subject.  We 
mean  merely  to  state  what  has,  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge, 
been  the  predominant  character  of  the  anti-slavery  publications. 
There  is  one  circumstance  which  renders  the  error  and  guilt  of 
this  course  of  conduct  chargeable,  in  a  great  measure,  on  the 
abolitionists  as  a  body,  and  even  upon  those  of  their  number  who 
have  pursued  a  different  course.  We  refer  to  the  fact  that  they 
have  upheld  the  most  extreme  publications,  and  made  common 
cause  with  the  most  reckless  declaimers.  The  wildest  ravings  of 
the  Liberator  have  been  constantly  lauded  ;  agents  have  been 
commissioned  whose  great  distinction  was  a  talent  for  eloquent 
vituperation  ;  coincidence  of  opinion  as  to  the  single  point  of  im- 
mediate emancipation  has  been  sufficient  to  unite  men  of  the 
most  discordant  character.  There  is  in  this  conduct  such  a 
strange  want  of  adaptation  of  the  means  to  the  end  which  they 
profess  to  have  in  view,  as  to  stagger  the  faith  of  most  persons 
in  the  sincerity  of  their  professions,  who  do  not  consider  the  ex- 
tremes to  which  even  good  men  may  be  carried,  when  they  allow 
one  subject  to  take  exclusive  possession  of  their  minds.  We  do 
not  doubt  their  sincerity  ;  but  we  marvel  at  their  delusion.  They 
seem  to  have  been  led  by  the  mere  impulse  of  feeling,  and  a  blind 
imitation  of  their  pred(!cessors  in  England,  to  a  course  of  mea- 
sures, which,  though  rational  under  one  set  of  circumstances,  is 
the  height  of  infatuation  under  another.  The  English  abolition- 
ists addressed  themselves  to  a  community,  which,  though  it 
owned  no  slaves,  had  the  power  to  abolish  slavery,  and  was  there- 
fore responsible  for  its  continuance.  Their  object  was  to  rouse 
that  community  to  immediate  action.  For  this  purpose  they  ad- 
dressed themselves  to  the  feelings  of  the  people  ;  they  portrayed 
in  the  strongest  colors  the  misery  of  the  slaves  ;  they  dilated  on 
the  gratuitous  crime  of  which  England  was  guilty  in  perpetuating 
slavery,  and  did  all  they  could  to  excite  the  passions  of  the  pub- 
lic. This  was  the  very  course  most  likely  to  succeed,  and  it  did 
succeed.  Suppose,  however,  that  the  British  parliament  had  no 
power  over  the  subject ;  that  it  rested  entirely  with  the  colonial 
assemblies  to  decide  whether  slavery  should  be  abolished  or  not. 
Does  any  man  believe  the  abolitionists  would  have  gained  their 


476  SLAVEET. 

object  ?  Did  they,  in  fact,  make  converts  of  the  planters  ?  Did 
they  even  pretend  that  such  was  their  design  ?  Every  one  knows 
that  their  conduct  produced  a  state  of  almost  frantic  excitement 
in  the  West  India  Islands  ;  that  so  far  from  the  pubhc  feeling  in 
England  producing  a  moral  impression  upon  the  planters  favor- 
able to  the  condition  of  the  slaves,  its  effect  was  directly  the 
reverse.  It  excited  them  to  drive  away  the  missionaries,  to  tear 
down  the  chapels,  to  manifest  a  determination  to  rivet  still  more 
firmly  the  chains  on  their  helpless  captives,  and  to  resist  to  the 
utmost  all  attempts  for  their  emancipation  or  even  improvement. 
All  this  was  natural,  though  it  was  all,  under  the  circumstances, 
of  no  avail,  except  to  rouse  the  spirit  of  the  mother-country,  and 
to  endanger  the  result  of  the  experiment  of  emancipation,  by 
exasperating  the  feelings  of  the  slaves.  Precisely  similar  has 
been  the  result  of  the  efforts  of  the  American  abolitionists  as  it 
regards  the  slaveholders  of  America.  They  have  produced  a 
state  of  alarming  exasperation  at  the  South,  injurious  to  the 
slave  and  dangerous  to  the  country,  while  they  have  failed  to  enlist 
the  feelings  of  the  North.  This  failure  has  resulted,  not  so  much 
from  diversity  of  opinion  on  the  abstract  question  of  slavery,  or  from 
want  of  sympathy  among  northern  men  in  the  cause  of  human 
rights,  as  from  the  fact  that  the  common  sense  of  the  public  has 
been  shocked  by  the  incongruity  and  folly  of  hoping  to  effect  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  one  country  by  addressing  the  people  of 
another.  We  do  not  expect  to  abolish  despotism  in  Russia,  by 
getting  up  indignation  meetings  in  New  York.  Yet,  for  all  the 
purposes  of  legislation  on  this  subject,  Russia  is  not  more  a 
foreign  country  to  us  than  South  Carolina.  The  idea  of  inducing 
the  southern  slaveholder  to  emancipate  his  slaves  by  denuncia- 
tion, is  about  as  rational  as  to  expect  the  sovereigns  of  Europe  to 
grant  .free  institutions,  by  calling  them  tyrants  and  robbers. 
Could  we  send  our  denunciations  of  despotism  among  the  subjects 
of  those  monarchs,  and  rouse  the  people  to  a  sense  of  their 
wrongs  and  a  determination  to  redress  them,  there  would  be  some 
prospect  of  success.  But  our  northern  abolitionists  disclaim, 
with  great  earnestness,  all  intention  of  allowing  their  appeals  to 
reach  the  ears  of  the  slaves.  It  is,  therefore,  not  to  be  wondered 
at,  that  the  course  pursued  by  the  anti-slavery  societies,  should 
produce  exasperation  at  the  South,  without  conciliating  sympathy 
at  the  North.     The  impolicy  of  their  conduct  is  so  obvious,  that 


SLAVEKY.  477 

men  who  agree  with  them  as  to  all  their  leading  principles,  not 
only  stand  aloof  from  their  measures,  but  unhesitatingly  condemn 
their  conduct.  This  is  the  case  with  Dr.  Channing.  Although 
his  book  was  written  rather  to  repress  the  feeling  of  opposition  to 
these  societies,  than  to  encourage  it,  yet  he  fully  admits  the  justice 
of  the  principal  charges  brought  against  them.  We  extract  a 
few  passages  on  this  subject.  "  The  abolitionists  have  done 
wrong,  I  believe  ;  nor  is  their  wrong  to  be  winked  at,  because 
done  fanatically,  or  with  good  intentions  ;  for  how  much  mischief 
may  be  wrought  with  good  designs  !  Thoy  have  fallen  into  the 
common  error  of  enthusiasts,  that  of  exaggerating  their  object, 
of  feeling  as  if  no  evil  existed  but  that  which  they  opposed,  and 
as  if  no  guilt  could  be  compared  with  that  of  countenancing  and 
upholding  it.  The  tone  of  their  newspapers,  as  far  as  I  have 
seen  them,  has  often  been  fierce,  bitter,  and  abusive."  P.  133. 
"  Another  objection  to  their  movement  is,  that  they  have  sought 
to  accomplish  their  object  by  a  system  or  agitation  ;  that  is,  by 
a  system  of  affiliated  societies  gathered,  and  held  together,  and 
extended,  by  passionate  eloquence."  "  The  abolitionists  might 
have  formed  an  association  ;  but  it  should  have  been  an  elective 
one.  Men  of  strong  principles,  judiciousness,  sobriety,  should 
have  been  carefully  sought  as  members.  Much  good  might  have 
been  accomplished  by  the  co-operation  of  such  philanthropists. 
Instead  of  this,  the  abolitionists  sent  forth  their  orators,  some  of 
them  transported  with  fiery  zeal,  to  sound  the  alarm  against 
slavery  through  the  land,  to  gather  together  young  and  old,  pupils 
from  schools,  females  hardly  arrived  at  years  of  discretion,  the 
ignorant,  the  excitable,  the  impetuous,  and  to  organize  these  into 
associations  for  the  battle  against  oppression.  Very  unhappily 
they  preached  their  doctrine  to  the  colored  people,  and  collected 
these  into  societies.  To  this  mixed  and  excitable  multitude, 
minute,  heart-rending,  descriptions  of  slavery  were  given  in  the 
piercing  tones  of  passion  ;  and  slaveholders  were  held  up  as 
monsters  of  cruelty  and  crime."  P.  136.  "  The  abolitionists 
often  speak  of  Luther's  vehemence  as  a  model  to  future  reform- 
ers. But  who,  that  has  read  history,  does  not  know  that  Luther's 
reformation  was  accompanied  by  tremendous  miseries  and  crimes, 
and  that  its  progress  was  soon  arrested  ?  and  is  there  not  reason 
to  fear,  that  the  fierce,  bitter,  persecuting  spirit,  which  he  breathed 
into  the  work,  not  only  tarnished  its  glory,  but  limited  its  power  ? 


478  SLAVERY. 

One  great  principle  which  we  should  lay  down  as  immovably 
true,  is,  that  if  a  good  work  cannot  be  carried  on  by  the  calm, 
self-controlled,  benevolent  spirit  of  Christianity,  then  the  time 
for  doing  it  has  not  come.  God  asks  not  the  aid  of  our  vices. 
He  can  overrule  them  for  good,  but  they  are  not  the  chosen  in- 
struments of  human  haj^piness."  P.  138.  "  The  adoption  of 
the  common  system  of  agitation  by  the  abolitionists  has  proved 
signally  unsuccessful.  From  the  beginning  it  created  alarm  in 
the  considerate,  and  strengthened  the  sympathies  of  the  free 
States  with  the  slaveholder.  It  made  converts  of  a  few  individ- 
uals, but  alienated  multitudes.  Its  influence  at  the  South  has 
been  evil  without  mixture.  It  has  stirred  up  bitter  passions  and 
a  fierce  fanaticism,  which  has  shut  every  ear  and  every  heart 
against  its  arguments  and  persuasions.  These  efforts  are  the 
more  to  be  deplored,  because  the  hope  of  freedom  to  the  slaves 
lies  chiefly  in  the  disposition  of  his  master.  The  abolitionist 
indeed  proposed  to  convert  the  slaveholders  ;  and  for  this  end 
he  approached  them  with  vituperation  and  exhausted  on  them 
the  vocabulary  df  abuse  !  And  he  has  reaped  as  he  sowed." 
P.  142. 

Unmixed  good  or  evil,  however,  in  such  a  world  as  ours,  is  a 
very  rare  thing.  Though  the  course  pursued  by  the  abolitionists 
has  produced  a  great  preponderance  of  mischief,  it  may  incident- 
ally occasion  no  little  good.  It  has  rendered  it  incumbent  on 
every  man  to  endeavor  to  obtain,  and,  as  far  as  he  can,  communi- 
cate definite  opinions  and  correct  principles  on  the  whole  subject. 
The  community  are  very  apt  to  sink  down  into  indifference  to 
a  state  of  things  of  long  continuance,  and  to  content  themselves 
with  vague  impressions  as  to  right  and  wrong  on  important  points, 
when  there  is  no  call  for  immediate  action.  From  this  state  the 
abolitionists  have  effectually  roused  the  public  mind.  The  sub- 
ject of  slavery  is  no  longer  one  on  which  men  are  allowed  to  be  of 
no  mind  at  all.  The  question  is  brought  up  before  all  of  our 
public  bodies,  civil  and  religious.  Almost  every  ecclesiastical 
society  has  in  some  way  been  called  to  express  an  opinion  on  the 
subject ;  and  these  calls  are  constantly  repeated.  Under  these 
circumstances,  it  is  the  duty  of  all  in  their  appropriate  sphere,  to 
seek  for  truth,  and  to  utter  it  in  love. 

"  The  first  question,"  says  Dr.  Channing,  "  to  be  proposed  by 
a  rational  being,  is   not  what   is   profitable,  but  what  is  right. 


SLAVERY.  479 

Duty  must  be  primary,  prominent,  most  conspicuous,  among  the 
objects  of  human  thought  and  pursuit.  If  we  cast  it  down  from 
its  supremacy,  if  we  inquire  first  for  our  interests  and  then  for 
our  duties,  we  shall  certainly  err.  We  can  never  see  the  right 
clearly  and  fully,  but  by  making  it  our  first  concern.  *  *  * 
Eight  is  the  supreme  good,  and  includes  all  other  goods.  In 
seeking  and  adhering  to  it,  we  secure  our  true  and  only  happi- 
ness. All  prosperity,  not  founded  on  it,  is  built  on  sand.  II 
human  afiairs  are  controlled,  as  we  believe,  by  almighty  rectitude 
and  impartial  goodness,  then  to  hope  for  happiness  from  wrong 
doing  is  as  insane  as  to  seek  health  and  prosperity  by  rebelKng 
against  the  law  of  nature,  by  sowing  our  seed  on  the  ocean,  or 
making  poison  our  common  food.  There  is  but  one  unfailing 
good  ;  and  that  is,  fidelity  to  the  everlasting  law  written  on  the 
heart,  and  re- written  and  re-published  in  God's  word. 

"  Whoever  places  this  faith  in  the  everlasting  law  of  rectitude 
must,  of  course,  regard  the  question  of  slavery,  first,  and  chiefly, 
as  a  moral  question.  All  other  considerations  will  weigh  little 
with  him  compared  with  its  moral  character  and  moral  influences. 
The  following  remarks,  therefore,  are  designed  to  aid  the  reader 
in  forming  a  just  moral  judgment  of  slavery.  Great  truths, 
inalienable  rights,  everlasting  duties,  these  will  form  the  chief 
subjects  of  this  discussion.  There  are  times  when  the  assertion 
of  great  principles  is  the  best  service  a  man  can  render  society. 
The  present  is  a  moment  of  bewildering  excitement,  when  men's 
minds  are  stormed  and  darkened  by  strong  passions  and  fierce 
conflicts  ;  and  also  a  moment  of  absorbing  worldliness,  when  the 
moral  law  is  made  to  bow  to  expediency,  and  its  high  and  strict 
requirements  are  decried  or  dismissed  as  metaphysical  abstractions, 
or  impracticable  theories.  At  such  a  season  to  utter  great  princi- 
ples without  passion,  and  in  the  spirit  of  unfeigned  and  universal 
good  will,  and  to  engrave  them  deeply  and  durably  on  men's 
minds,  is  to  do  more  for  the  world,  than  to  open  mines  of  wealth, 
or  to  frame  the  most  successful  schemes  of  policy." 

No  man  can  refuse  assent  to  these  principles.  The  great 
question,  therefore,  in  relation  to  slavery  is,  what  is  right .?  What 
are  the  moral  principles  which  should  control  our  opinions  and 
conduct  in  regard  to  it  ?  Before  attempting  an  answer  to  this 
question,  it  is  proper  to  remark,  that  we  recognize  no  authorita- 
tive rule  of  truth  and  duty  but  the  word  of  God.     Plausible  as 


480  SLAVERY. 

may  be  the  arguments  deduced  from  general  principles  to  prove 
a  thing  to  be  true  or  false,  right  and  wrong,  there  is  almost 
always  room  for  doubt  and  honest  diversity  of  opinion.  Clear  as 
we  may  think  the  arguments  against  despotism,  there  ever  have 
been  thousands  of  enlightened  and  good  men,  who  honestly  be- 
lieve it  to  be  of  all  forms  of  government  the  best  and  most 
acceptable  to  God.  Unless  we  can  approach  the  consciences  of 
men,  clothed  with  some  more  imposing  authority  than  that  of  our 
own  opinions  and  arguments,  we  shall  gain  little  permanent  influ- 
ence. Men  are  too  nearly  upon  a  par  as  to  their  powers  of 
reasoning,  and  ability  to  discover  truth,  to  make  the  conclusions 
of  one  mind  an  authoritative  rule  for  others.  It  is  our  object, 
therefore,  not  to  discuss  the  subject  of  slavery  upon  abstract  prin- 
ciples, but  to  ascertain  the  scriptural  rule  of  judgment  and  con- 
duct in  relation  to  it.  We  do  not  intend  to  enter  upon  any 
minute  or  extended  examination  of  scriptural  passages,  because 
all  that  we  wish  to  assume,  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  of 
God,  is  so  generally  admitted  as  to  render  the  labored  proof  of  it 
unnecessary. 

It  is  on  all  hands  acknowledged  that,  at  the  time  of  the  advent 
of  Jesus  Christ,  slavery  in  its  worst  forms  prevailed  over  the 
whole  world.  The  Saviour  found  it  arouud  him  in  Judea  ;  the 
apostles  met  with  it  in  Asia,  Greece,  and  Italy.  How  did  they  treat 
it  ?  Not  by  the  denunciation  of  slaveholding  as  necessarily  and 
universally  sinful.  Not  by  declaring  that  all  slaveholders  were  men- 
stealers  and  robbers,  and  consequently  to  be  excluded  from  the 
church  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Not  by  insisting  on  imme- 
diate emancipation.  Not  by  appeals  to  the  passions  of  men  on 
the  evils  of  slavery,  or  by  the  adoption  of  a  system  of  universal 
agitation.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  by  teaching  the  true  nature, 
dignity,  equality,  and  destiny  of  men  ;  by  inculcating  the  princi- 
ples of  justice  and  love  ;  and  by  leaving  these  principles  to 
produce  their  legitimate  effects  in  ameliorating  the  condition  of 
all  classes  of  society.  We  need  not  stop  to  prove  that  such  was 
the  course  pursued  by  our  Saviour  and  his  apostles,  because  the 
fact  is  in  general  acknowledged,  and  various  reasons  are  assigned, 
by  abolitionists  and  others,  to  account  for  it.  The  subject  is 
hardly  alluded  to  by  Christ  in  any  of  his  personal  instructions. 
The  apostles  refer  to  it,  not  to  pronounce  upon  it  as  a  question 
of  morals,  but  to  prescribe  the  relative  duties  of  masters  and 


SLAVEKY.  481 

slaves.  They  caution  those  slaves  who  have  believing  or  Chris- 
tian masters,  not  to  despise  them  because  they  were  on  a  perfect 
religious  equality  with  them,  but  to  consider  the  fact  that  their 
masters  were  their  brethren,  as  an  additional  reason  for  obedi- 
ence. It  is  remarkable  that  there  is  not  even  an  exhortation  to 
masters  to  liberate  their  slaves,  much  less  is  it  urged  as  an  im- 
perative and  immediate  duty.  They  are  commanded  to  be  kind, 
merciful,  and  just  ;  and  to  remember  that  they  have  a  Master  in 
heaven.  Paul  represents  this  relation  as  of  comparatively  little 
account,  "  Let  every  man  abide  in  the  same  calling  wherein  he 
was  called.  Art  thou  called  being  a  servant  (or  slave)  care  not 
for  it ;  though,  should  the  opportunity  of  freedom  be  presented, 
embrace  it.  These  external  relations,  however,  are  of  little  im- 
portance, for  every  Christian  is  a  freeman  in  the  highest  and  best 
sense  of  the  word,  and  at  the  same  time  is  under  the  strongest 
bonds  to  Christ."  1  Cor.  vii,  20-22.  It  is  not  worth  while  to  shut 
our  eyes  to  these  facts.  They  will  remain,  whether  we  refuse  to 
see  them  and  be  instructed  by  them  or  not.  If  we  are  wiser, 
better,  more  Courageous  than  Christ  and  his  apostles,  let  us  say 
so  ;  but  it  will  do  no  good,  under  a  paroxysm  of  benevolence,  to 
attempt  to  tear  the  Bible  to  pieces,  or  to  extort  by  violent  exe- 
gesis, a  meaning  foreign  to  its  obvious  sense.  Whatever  inferences 
may  be  fairly  deducible  from  the  fact,  the  fact  itself  cannot  be 
denied  that  Christ  and  his  inspired  followers  did  treat  the  subject 
of  slavery  in  the  manner  stated  above.  This  being  the  case,  we 
ought  carefully  to  consider  their  conduct  in  this  respect,  and  in- 
quire what  lessons  that  conduct  should  teach  us. 

We  think  no  one  will  deny  that  the  plan  adopted  by  the 
Saviour  and  his  immediate  followers  must  be  the  correct  plan, 
and  therefore  obbgatory  upon  us,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  their 
circumstances  were  so  different  from  ours,  as  to  make  the  rule  of 
duty  different  in  the  two  cases.  The  obligation  to  point  out  and 
establish  this  difference,  rests  of  course  upon  those  who  have 
adopted  a  course  diametrically  the  reverse  of  that  which  Christ 
pursued.  They  have  not  acquitted  themselves  of  this  obligation. 
They  do  not  seem  to  have  felt  it  necessary  to  reconcile  their  con- 
duct with  his  ;  nor  does  it  appear  to  have  occurred  to  them,  that 
their  violent  denunciations  of  slaveholding,  and  of  slaveholders, 
is  an  indirect  reflection  on  his  wisdom,  virtue,  or  courage.  If  the 
present  course   of  the  abolitionists  is  right,  then  the  course  of 

31 


482  SLAVERY. 

Christ  and  the  apostles  was  wrong.  For  the  circumstances  of  the 
two  cases  are,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  in  all  essential  particulars,  the 
same.  They  appeared  as  teachers  of  morality  and  religion,  not 
politicians.  The  same  is  the  fact  with  our  abolitionists.  They 
found  slavery  authorized  by  the  laws  of  the  land.  So  do  we. 
They  were  called  upon  to  receive  into  the  communion  of  the 
Christian  church,  both  slaveholders  and  slaves.  So  are  we. 
They  instructed  these  different  classes  of  persons  as  to  their  re- 
spective duties.  So  do  we.  Where,  then,  is  the  difference 
between  the  two  cases  .^  If  we  are  right  in  insisting  that  slave- 
holding  is  one  of  the  greatest  of  all  sins  ;  that  it  should  be 
immediately  and  universally  abandoned  as  a  condition  of  church 
communion,  or  admission  into  heaven,  how  comes  it  that  Christ 
and  his  apostles  did  not  pursue  the  same  course  P  We  see 
no  way  of  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  the  conduct  of  the 
modern  abolitionists,  being  directly  opposed  to  that  of  the  authors 
of  our  religion,  must  be  wrong  and  ought  to  be  modified  or 
abandoned. 

An  equally  obvious  deduction  from  the  fact  above  referred  to, 
is,  that  slaveholding  is  not  necessarily  sinful.  The  assumption  of 
the  contrary  is  the  great  reason  why  the  modern  abolitionists 
have  adopted  their  peculiar  course.  They  argue  thus  :  Slavehold- 
ing is,  under  all  circumstances  sinful,  it  must,  therefore,  under  all 
circumstances,  and  at  all  hazards,  be  immediately  abandoned. 
This  reasoning  is  perfectly  conclusive.  If  there  is  error  any 
where,  it  is  in  the  premises,  and  not  in  the  conclusion.  It  re- 
quires no  argument  to  show  that  sin  ought  to  be  at  once  abandoned. 
Every  thing,  therefore,  is  conceded  which  the  abolitionists  need 
require,  when  it  is  granted  that  slaveholding  is  itself  a  crime.  But 
how  can  this  assumption  be  reconciled  with  the  conduct  of  Christ 
and  the  apostles  .^  Did  they  shut  their  eyes  to  the  enormities  of 
a  great  offence  against  Grod  and  man  ?  Did  they  temporize  with 
a  heinous  evil,  because  it  was  common  and  popular  ?  Did  they 
absta,in  from  even  exhorting  masters  to  emancipate  their  slaves, 
though  an  imperative  duty,  from  fear  of  consequences  ?  Did 
they  admit  the  perpetrators  of  the  greatest  crimes  to  the  Chris- 
tian communion  ?  Who  vs^ill  undertake  to  charge  the  blessed 
Redeemer,  and  his  inspired  followers,  with  such  connivance  at  sin, 
and  such  fellowship  with  iniquity  ?  Were  drunkards,  murderers, 
liars,  and  adulterers  thus  treated  ?  Were  they  passed  over  without 


SLAVEKY.  483 

even  an  exhortation  to  forsake  their  sins  ?  Were  they  recognized 
as  Christians  ?  It  cannot  be  that  slaveholding  belongs  to  the 
same  category  with  these  crimes  ;  and  to  assert  the  contrary  is  to 
assert  that  Christ  is  the  minister  of  sin. 

This  is  a  point  of  so  mnch  importance,  lying  as  it  does  at  the 
veiy  foundation  of  the  whole  subject,  that  it  deserves  to  be  at- 
tentively considered.  The  grand  mistake,  as  we  apprehend,  of 
those  who  maintain  that  slaveholding  is  itself  a  crime,  is,  that 
they  do  not  discriminate  between  slaveholding  in  itself  consid- 
ered, and  its  accessories  at  any  particular  time  or  place.  Because 
masters  may  treat  their  slaves  unjustly,  or  governments  make 
oppressive  laws  in  relation  to  them,  is  no  more  a  valid  argument 
against  the  lawfulness  of  slaveholding,  than  the  abuse  of  parental 
authority,  or  the  unjust  political  laws  of  certain  States,  is  an 
argument  against  the  lawfulness  of  the  parental  relation,  or  of 
civil  government.  This  confusion  of  points  so  widely  distinct, 
appears  to  us  to  run  through  almost  all  the  popular  publications 
on  slavery,  and  to  vitiate  their  arguments.  Mr.  Jay,  for  example, 
quotes  the  second  article  of  the  constitution  of  the  American 
Anti-Slavery  Society,  which  declares  that  "  slavery  is  a  heinous 
crime  in  the  sight  of  God,"  and  then,  to  justify  this  declaration, 
makes  large  citations  from  the  laws  of  the  several  southern  States, 
to  show  what  the  system  of  slavery  is  in  this  country,  and  con- 
cludes by  saying,  "  This  is  the  system  which  the  American  Anti- 
Slavery  Society  declares  to  be  sinful,  and  ought  therefore  to  be 
immediately  abolished."  There  is,  however,  no  necessary  con- 
nexion between  his  premises  and  conclusion.  We  may  admit 
all  those  laws  which  forbid  the  instruction  of  slaves  ;  which  inter- 
fere with  their  marital  or  parental  rights  ;  which  subject  them  to 
the  insults  and  oppression  of  the  whites,  to  be  in  the  highest  de- 
gree unjust,  without  at  all  admitting  that  slaveholding  itself  is  a 
crime.  Slavery  may  exist  without  any  one  of  these  concomitants. 
In  pronouncing  on  the  moral  character  of  an  act,  it  is  obviously 
necessary  to  have  a  clear  idea  of  what  it  is  ;  yet  how  few  of  those 
who  denounce  slavery,  have  any  well  defined  conception  of  its 
nature.  They  have  a  confused  idea  of  chains  and  whips,  of  degra- 
dation and  misery,  of  ignorance  and  vice,  and  to  this  complex 
conception  they  apply  the  name  slavery,  and  denounce  it  as  the 
aggregate  of  all  moral  and  physical  evil.  Do  such  persons  sup- 
pose that  slavery,  as  it  existed  in  the  family  of  Abraham,  was 


484  SLAVERY. 

such  as  their  imagination  thus  pictures  to  themselves  ?  Might 
not  that  patriarch  have  had  men  purchased  with  his  silver,  who 
were  well  clothed,  well  instructed,  well  compensated  for  their 
labor,  and  in  all  respects  treated  with  parental  kindness  ? 
Neither  inadequate  remuneration,  physica-l  discomfort,  intellectual 
ignorance,  nor  moral  degradation,  is  essential  to  the  condition  of  a 
slave.  Yet  if  all  these  ideas  are  removed  from  the  commonly  re- 
ceived notion  of  slavery,  how  little  will  remain.  All  the  ideas 
which  necessarily  enter  into  the  definition  of  slavery  are  depriva- 
tion of  personal  liberty,  obligation  of  service  at  the  discretion  of 
another,  and  the  transferable  character  of  the  authority  and 
claim  of  service  of  the  master.'  The  manner  in  which  men  are 
brought  into  this  condition  ;  its  continuance,  and  the  means 
adopted  for  securing  the  authority  and  claims  of  masters,  are  all 
incidental  and  variable.  They  may  be  reasonable  or  unreason- 
able, just  or  unjust,  at  different  times  and  places.  The  question, 
therefore,  which  the  abolitionists  have  undertaken  to  decide,  is 
not  whether  the  laws  enacted  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  re- 
lation to  this  subject,  are  just  or  not,  but  whether  slaveholding, 
in  itself  considered,  is  a  crime.  The  confusion  of  these  two 
points,  has  not  only  brought  the  abolitionists  into  conflict  with 
the  Scriptures,  but  it  has,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  prevented 
their  gaining  the  confidence  of  the  North,  or  power  over  the 
conscience  of  the  South.  When  southern  Christians  are  told  that 
they  are  guilty  of  a  heinous  crime,  Avorse  than  piracy,  robbery,  or 
murder,  because  they  hold  slaves,  when  they  know  that  Christ 
and  his  apostles  never  denounced  slaveholding  as  a  crime,  never 
called  upon  men  to  renounce  it  as  a  condition  of  admission  into 
the  church,  they  are  shocked  and  offended,  without  being  con- 
vinced. They  are  sure  that  their  accusers  cannot  be  wiser  or 
better  than  their  divine  Master,  and  their  consciences  are  un- 
touched by  denunciations  which  they  knov/,  if  well  founded, 
must  affect  not  them  only,  but  the  authors  of  the  religion  of  the 
Bible. 

The  argument  from  the  conduct  of  Christ  and  his  immediate 
followers  seems  to  us  decisive  on  the  point,  that  slaveholding,  in 
itself  considered,  is  not  a  crime.     Let  us  see  how  this  argument 

'  Paley's  definition  is  still  more  simple,  "I  define,"  he  says,  "slavery  to  be  an 
obligation  to  labor  for  the  benefit  of  the  master,  without  the  contract  or  consent  of 
the  servant." — Moral  Philosophy,  Book  III.,  ch.  3. 


SLAVERY.  485 

has  been  answered.  In  the  able  "  Address  to  the  Presbyterians 
of  Kentucky,  proposing  a  plan  for  the  instruction  and  emancipa- 
tion of  their  slaves,  by  a  committee  of  the  Synod  of  Kentucky," 
there  is  a  strong  and  extended  argument  to  prove  the  sinfulness 
of  slavery  as  it  exists  among  us,  to  which  we  have  little  to 
object.  When,  however,  the  distinguished  drafter  of  that  address 
comes  to  answer  the  objection,  "  God's  word  sanctions  slavery, 
and  it  cannot  therefore  be  sinful,"  he  forgets  the  essential  limita- 
tion of  the  proposition  which  he  had  undertaken  to  establish,  and 
proceeds  to  prove  that  the  Bible  condemns  slaveholding,  and  not 
merely  the  kind  or  system  of  slavery  which  prevails  in  this 
country.  The  argument  drawn  from  the  Scriptures,  he  says, 
needs  no  elaborate  reply.  If  the  Bible  sanctions  slavery,  it  sanc- 
tions the  kind  of  slavery  which  then  prevailed  ;  the  atrocious 
system  which  authorized  masters  to  starve  their  slaves,  to  torture 
them,  to  beat  them,  to  put  them  to  death,  and  to  throw  them  into 
their  fish  ponds.  And  he  justly  asks,  whether  a  man  could  insult 
the  God  of  heaven  worse  than  by  saying  he  does  not  disapprove 
of  such  a  system  ?  Dr.  Channing  presents  strongly  the  same 
view,  and  says,  that  an  infidel  would  be  laboiing  in  his  vocation 
in  asserting  that  the  Bible  does  not  condemn  slavery.  These 
gentlemen,  however,  are  far  too  clear-sighted  not  to  discover,  on  a 
moment's  reflection,  that  they  have  allowed  their  benevolent  feel- 
ings to  blind  them  to  the  real  point  at  issue.  No  one  denies  that 
the  Bible  condemns  all  injustice,  cruelty,  oppression  and  violence. 
And  just  so  far  as  the  laws  then  existing  authorized  these  crimes, 
the  Bible  condemned  them.  But  what  stronger  argument  can  be 
presented  to  prove  that  the  sacred  writers  did  not  regard  slave- 
holding  as  in  itself  sinful,  than  that  while  they  condemn  all 
unjust  or  unkind  treatment  (even  threatening)  on  the  part  of 
masters  towards  their  slaves,  they  did  not  condemn  slavery  itself  ? 
While  they  required  the  master  to  treat  his  slave  according  to 
the  law  of  love,  they  did  not  command  him  to  set  him  free.  The 
very  atrocity,  therefore,  of  the  system  which  then  prevailed,  in- 
stead of  weakening  the  argument,  gives  it  tenfold  strength. 
Then,  if  ever,  when  the  institution  was  so  fearfully  abused,  we 
might  expect  to  hear  the  interpreters  of  the  divine  will  saying 
that  a  system  which  leads  to  such  results  is  the  concentrated  es- 
sence of  all  crimes,  and  must  be  instantly  abandoned  on  pain  of 
eternal  condemnation.     This,  however,  they  did  not  say,  and  we 


486  SLAVERY. 

cannot  now  force  them  to  say  it.  They  treated  the  subject  pre- 
cisely as  they  did  the  cruel  despotism  of  the  Eoman  emperors. 
The  licentiousness,  the  injustice,  the  rapine  and  murders  of  those 
wicked  men,  they  condemned  with  the  full  force  of  divine  author- 
ity ;  but  the  mere  extent  of  their  power,  though  so  liable  to 
abuse,  they  left  unnoticed. 

Another  answer  to  the  argument  in  question  is,  that  "the 
New  Testament  does  not  condemn  slaveholding  as  practiced 
among  us,  in  the  most  explicit  terms  furnished  by  the  language 
in  which  the  sacred  penmen  wrote."  This  assertion  is  supported 
by  saying  that  God  has  condemned  slavery,  because  he  has  speci- 
fied the  parts  which  compose  it  and  condemned  them,  one  by  one, 
in  the  most  ample  and  unequivocal  form.'  It  is  to  be  remarked 
that  the  saving  clause  "  slaveholding  as  it  exists  among  us,"  is 
introduced  into  the  statement,  though  it  seems  to  be  lost  sight  of 
in  the  illustration  and  confirmation  of  it  which  follow.  We 
readily  admit,  that  if  God  does  condemn  all  the  parts  of  which 
slavery  consists,  he  condemns  slavery  itself  But  the  drafter  of 
the  address  has  made  no  attempt  to  prove  that  this  is  actually 
done  in  the  sacred  Scriptures.  That  many  of  the  attributes  of  the 
system,  as  established  by  law  in  this  country,  are  condemned,  is 
indeed  very  plain  ;  but  that  slaveholding  in  itself  is  condemned, 
has  not  been  and  cannot  be  proved.  The  writer,  indeed,  says, 
"  The  Greek  language  had  a  word  corresponding  exactly,  in 
signification  with  our  word  servant,  but  it  had  none  which 
answered  precisely  to  our  term  slave.  How  then  was  an  apostle, 
writing  in  Greek,  to  condemn  our  slavery  ?  How  can  we  expect 
to  find  in  Scripture,  the  words  '  slavery  is  sinful,'  when  the  lan- 
guage in  which  it  is  written  contained  no  term  which  expressed 
the  meaning  of  our  word  slavery  ?"  Does  the  gentleman  mean 
to  say  the  Greek  language  could  not  express  the  idea  that  slave- 
holding  is  sinful  ?  Could  not  the  apostles  have  communicated 
the  thought  that  it  was  the  duty  of  masters  to  set  their  slaves 
free  ?  Were  they  obliged  from  paucity  of  words  to  admit  slave- 
holders into  the  church  ?  We  have  no  doubt  the  writer  himself 
could,  with  all  ease,  pen  a  declaration  in  the  Greek  language  void 
of  all  ambiguity,  proclaiming  freedom  to  every  slave  upon  earth, 
and  denouncing  the  vengeance  of  heaven  upon  every  man  who 
dared  to  hold  a  fellow-creature  in  bondage.     It  is  not  words  we 

'  Address,  &c.,  p.  20. 


SLAVERY.  487 

care  for.  We  want  evidence  that  the  sacred  writers  taught  that 
it  was  incumbent  on  every  slaveholder,  as  a  matter  of  duty,  to 
emancipate  his  slaves  (which  no  Eoman  or  Greek  law  forbade), 
and  that  his  refusing  to  do  so  was  a  heinous  crime  in  the  sight  of 
God.  The  Greek  language  must  be  poor  indeed  if  it  cannot  con- 
vey such  ideas. 

Another  answer  is  given  by  Dr.  Channing,  "  Slavery,"  he 
says,  "  in  the  age  of  the  apostle,  had  so  penetrated  society,  was 
so  intimately  interwoven  with  it,  and  the  materials  of  servile  war 
were  so  abundant,  that  a  religion,  preaching  freedom  to  its  vic- 
tims, would  have  armed  against  itself  the  whole  power  of  the 
State.  Of  consequence  Paul  did  not  assail  it.  He  satisfied  him- 
self with  sj)reading  principles,  which,  however  slowly,  could  not 
but  work  its  destruction."  To  the  same  effect.  Dr.  Wayland  says, 
"  The  gospel  was  designed,  not  for  one  race  or  one  time,  but  for 
all  men  and  for  all  times.  It  looked  not  at  the  abolition  of 
this  form  of  evil  for  this  age  alone,  but  for  its  universal  abolition. 
Hence  the  important  object  of  its  author  was  to  gain  it  a  lodge- 
ment in  every  part  of  the  known  world  ;  so  that,  by  its  universal 
diffusion  among  all  classes  of  society,  it  might  quietly  and  peace- 
fully modify  and  subdue  the  evil  passions  of  men  ;  and  thus, 
without  violence,  work  a  revolution  in  the  whole  mass  of  man- 
kind. In  this  manner  alone  could  its  object,  a  universal  moral 
revolution,  be  accomplished.  For  if  it  had  forbidden  the  evil  with- 
out subduing  the  principle,  if  it  had  proclaimed  the  unlawfulness 
of  slavery,  and  taught  slaves  to  resist  the  oppression  of  their 
masters,  it  would  instantly  have  arrayed  the  two  parties  in  deadly 
hostility  throughout  the  civilized  world  ;  its  announcement  would 
have  been  the  signal  of  a  servile  war  ;  and  the  very  name  of 
the  Christian  religion  would  have  been  forgotten  amidst  the 
agitations  of  universal  bloodshed.  The  fact,  under  these  circum- 
stances, that  the  gospel  does  not  forbid  slavery,  affords  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  it  does  not  mean  to  prohibit  it,  much  less  does 
it  afford  ground  for  belief  that  Jesus  Christ  intended  to  autho- 
rize it."' 

Before  considering  the  force  of  this  reasoning,  it  may  be  well 
to  notice  one  or  two  important  admissions  contained  in  these  ex- 
tracts. First,  then,  it  is  admitted  by  these  distinguished  moralists, 
that  the  apostles  did  not  preach  a  religion  proclaiming  freedom 
'  Elements  of  Moral  Science,  p.  225. 


488  SLAVERY. 

to  slaves  ;  that  Paul  did  not  assail  slavery  ;  that  the  gos[)cl  did  not 
proclaim  the  iinlawfuhjess  of  slaveholding  ;  it  did  not  forbid  it. 
This  is  going  tlie  whole  lengih  that  we  have  gone  in  our  state- 
ment of  the  conduct  of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  Secondly,  these 
writers  admit  that  the  course  adopted  by  the  authors  of  our  re- 
ligion was  the  only  wise  and  proper  one.  Paul  satisfied  liimself, 
says  Dr.  Channing,  with  spreading  j)rinciples,  which,  however 
slowly,  could  not  but  work  its  destruction.  Dr.  Wayland  says, 
that  if  the  apostles  had  pursued  the  opposite  plan  of  denouncing 
slavery  as  a  crime,  the  Christian  religion  would  have  been  ruined  ; 
its  very  name  would  have  been  forgotten.  Then  how  can  the 
course  of  the  modern  abolitionists,  under  circumstances  so  nearly 
similar,  or  even  that  of  these  reverend  gentlemen  themselves,  be 
right  ?  Why  do  not  they  content  themselves  with  doing  what 
Christ  and  his  apostles  did  ?  Why  must  they  proclaim  the  un- 
lawfulness of  slavery  ?  Is  human  nature  so  much  altered,  that  a 
course,  which  would  have  produced  universal  bloodshed,  and  led 
to  the  very  destruction  of  the  Christian  religion,  in  one  age,  is 
wise  and  Christian  in  another  ? 

Let  us,  however,  consider  the  force  of  the  argument  as  stated 
above.  It  amounts  to  this.  Christ  and  his  apostles  thought 
slaveholding  a  great  crime,  but  they  abstained  from  saying  so  for 
fear  of  the  consequences.  The  very  statement  of  the  argument, 
in  its  naked  form,  is  its  refutation.  The  apostles  did  not  refrain 
from  condemning  sin  from  a  regard  to  consequences.  They  did 
not  hesitate  to  array  against  the  religion  which  they  taught,  the 
strongest  passions  of  men.  Nor  did  they  content  themselves 
\vith  denouncing  the  general  principles  of  evil ;  they  condemned 
its  special  manifestations.  They  did  not  simply  forbid  intemper- 
ate sensual  indulgence,  and  leave  it  to  their  hearers  to  decide  what 
did  or  what  did  not  come  under  that  name.  They  declared  that 
no  fornicator,  no  adulterer,  no  drunkard,  could  be  admitted  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  They  did  not  hesitate,  even  when  a  lit- 
tle band,  a  hundred  and  twenty  souls,  to  place  themselves  in 
direct  and  irreconcilable  opposition  to  the  whole  polity,  civil  and 
rehgious,  of  the  Jewish  state.  It  will  hardly  be  maintained  that 
slavery  was,  at  that  time,  more  intimately  interwoven  with  the 
institutions  of  society,  than  idolatry  was.  It  entered  into  the 
arrangements  of  every  family  ;  of  every  city  and  province,  and 
of  the  whole  Pioman  empire.     The  emperor  was  the  Pontifex 


SLAVERY.  489 

Maximiis  ;  every  department  of  the  state,  civil  and  military^ 
was  pervaded  by  it.  It  was  so  united  with  the  fabric  of  the  gov- 
ernment that  it  could  not  be  removed  without  effecting  a  revolu- 
tion in  all  its  parts.  The  apostles  knew  this.  They  knew  that 
to  denounce  polytheism  was  to  array  against  them  the  whole 
power  of  the  State.  Their  divine  Master  had  distinctly  apprized 
them  of  the  result.  He  told  them  that  it  would  set  the  father 
against  the  son,  and  the  son  against  the  father  ;  the  naother 
against  the  daughter,  and  the  daughter  against  the  mother,  and 
that  a  man's  enemies  should  be  ihose  of  his  own  household.  He 
said  that  he  came  not  to  bring  peace  but  a  sword,  and  that  such 
would  be  the  opposition  to  his  followers,  that  whosoever  killed 
them,  would  think  he  did  God  service.  Yet  in  view  of  these 
certain  consequences,  the  apostles  did  denounce  idolatry,  not 
merely  in  principle,  but  by  name.  The  result  was  precisely  what 
Christ  had  foretold.  The  Romans,  tolerant  of  every  other  re- 
ligion, bent  the  whole  force  of  their  wisdom  and  arms  to  extirpate 
Christianity.  The  scenes  of  bloodshed,  which  century  after  cen- 
tury followed  the  introduction  of  the  gospel,  did  not  induce  the  fol- 
lowers of  Christ  to  keep  back  or  modify  the  truth.  They  adhered 
to  their  declaration  that  idolatry  was  a  heinous  crime.  And  they 
were  right.  We  expect  similar  conduct  of  our  missionaries. 
We  do  not  expect  them  to  refrain  from  denouncing  the  institu- 
tions of  the  heathen,  as  sinful,  because  they  are  popular,  or 
intimately  interw^oven  with  society.  The  Jesuits,  who  adopted 
this  plan,  forfeited  the  confidence  of  Christendom,  without  making 
converts  of  the  heathen.  It  is,  therefore,  perfectly  evident  that 
the  authors  of  our  religion  were  not  withheld  by  these  considera- 
tions, from  declaring  slavery  to  be  unlawful.  If  they  did  abstain 
from  this  declaration,  as  is  admitted,  it  must  have  been  because 
they  did  not  consider  it  as  in  itself  a  crime.  No  other  solution 
of  their  conduct  is  consistent  with  their  truth  or  fidelity. 

Another  answer  to  the  argument  from  Scripture  is  given  by 
Dr.  Channing  and  others.  It  is  said  that  it  proves  too  much  ; 
that  it  makes  the  Bible  sanction  despotism,  even  the  despotism 
of  Nero.  Our  reply  to  this  objection  shall  be  very  brief  We 
have  already  pointed  out  the  fallacy  of  confounding  slaveholding 
itself  with  the  particular  system  of  slavery  prevalent  at  the  time 
of  Christ,  and  shown  that  the  recognition  of  slaveholders  as 
Christians,  though  irreconcilable  with  the  assumption  that  slavery 


490  SLAVERY. 

is  a  heinous  crime,  gives  no  manner  of  sanction  to  the  atrocious 
laws  and  customs  of  that  age  in  relation  to  that  subject.  Be- 
cause the  apostles  admitted  the  masters  of  slaves  to  the  com- 
munion of  the  church,  it  would  be  a  strange  inference  that  they 
would  have  given  this  testimony  to  the  Christian  character 
of  the  master  who  oppressed,  starved,  or  murdered  his  slaves. 
Such  a  master  would  have  been  rejected  as  an  oppressor,  or  mur- 
derer, however,  not  as  a  slaveholder.  In  like  manner,  the  decla- 
ration that  government  is  an  ordinance  of  G'od,  that  magistrates 
are  to  be  obeyed  within  the  sphere  of  their  lawful  authority  ; 
that  resistance  to  them,  when  in  the  exercise  of  that  authority, 
is  sinful,'  gives  no  sanction  to  the  oppression  of  the  Roman  em- 
perors, or  to  the  petty  vexations  of  provincial  officers.  The  argu- 
ment urged  from  Scripture  in  favor  of  passive  submission,  is  not 
so  exactly  parallel  with  the  argument  for  slavery,  as  Dr.  Chan- 
ning  supposes.  They  agree  in  some  points,  but  they  differ  in 
others.  The  former  is  founded  upon  a  false  interpretation  of 
Rom.  xiii.  1-3 ;  it  supposes  that  passage  to  mean  what  it  does 
not  mean,  whereas  the  latter  is  founded  upon  the  sense  which  Dr. 
C.  and  other  opponents  of  slavery,  admit  to  be  the  true  sense. 
This  must  be  allowed  to  alter  the  case  materially.  Again,  the 
argument  for  the  lawfulness  of  slaveholding,  is  not  founded  on 
the  mere  injunction,  "  Slaves,  obey  your  masters,"  analogous  to 
the  command,  "  Let  every  soul  be  subject  to  the  higher  powers," 
but  on  the  fact  that  the  apostles  did  not  condemn  slavery  ;  that 
they  did  not  require  emancipation,  and  that  they  recognized 
slaveholders  as  Christian  brethren.  To  make  Dr.  Channing's 
argument  of  any  force,  it  must  be  shown  that  Paul  not  only  en- 
joined obedience  to  a  despotic  monarch,  but  that  he  recognized 
Nero  as  a  Christian.  When  this  is  done,  then  we  shall  admit 
that  our  argument  is  fairly  met,  and  that  it  is  just  as  true  that  he 
sanctioned  the  conduct  of  Nero  as  that  he  aclmowledged  the  law- 
fulness of  slavery. 

'  It  need  hardly  be  remarked  that  the  command  to  obey  magistrates,  as  given  in 
Rom  xiii.  1-3,  is  subject  to  the  limitation  stated  above.  They  are  to  be  obeyed  as 
magistrates ;  precisely  as  parents  are  to  be  obeyed  as  parents,  husbands  as  husbands. 
The  command  of  obedience  is  expressed  as  generally,  in  the  last  two  cases,  as  in  the 
first.  A  magistrate  beyond  the  limits  of  his  lawful  authority  (whatever  that  maybe) 
has,  in  virtue  of  this  text,  no  more  claim  to  obedience,  than  a  parent  who,  on  the 
strength  of  the  passage  "  Children  obey  your  parents  in  all  things,"  should  command 
his  son  to  obey  him  as  a  monarch  or  a  pope. 


SLAVERY.  49*1 

The  two  cases,  however,  are  analogous  as  to  one  important 
point.  The  fact  that  Paul  enjoins  obedience  under  a  despotic 
government,  is  a  valid  argument  to  prove,  not  that  he  sanctioned 
the  conduct  of  the  reigning  Koman  emperor,  but  that  he  did  not 
consider  the  possession  of  despotic  power  a  crime.  The  argument 
of  Dr.  C.  would  be  far  stronger,  and  the  two  cases  more  ex:actly 
parallel,  had  one  of  the  emperors  become  a  penitent  believer  during 
the  apostolic  age,  and  been  admitted  to  the  Christian  church  by- 
inspired  men,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he  retained  his  office 
and  authority.  But  even  without  this  latter  decisive  circum- 
stance, we  acknowledge  that  the  mere  holding  of  despotic  power 
is  proved  not  to  be  a  crime  by  the  fact  that  the  apostles  enjoined 
obedience  to  those  who  exercised  it.  Thus  far  the  arguments 
are  analogous  ;  and  they  prove  that  both  political  despotism  and 
domestic  slavery,  belong  in  morals  to  the  adiaphora,  to  things 
indifferent.  They  may  be  expedient  or  inexpedient,  right  or 
wrong  according  to  circumstances.  Belonging  to  the  same 
class,  they  should  be  treated  in  the  same  way.  Neither  is  to  be 
denounced  as  necessarily  sinful,  and  to  be  abolished  immediately 
under  all  circumstances  and  at  all  hazards.  Both  should  be  left 
to  the  operation  of  those  general  principles  of  the  gospel,  which 
have  peacefully  ameliorated  political  institutions,  and  destroyed 
domestic  slavery  throughout  the  greater  part  of  Christendom. 

The  truth  on  this  subject  is  so  obvious  that  it  sometimes 
escapes  unconsciously  from  the  lips  of  the  most  strenuous  abolition- 
ists. Mr.  Birney  says,  "  He  would  have  retained  the  power  and 
authority  of  an  emperor  ;  yet  his  oppressions,  his  cruelties  would 
have  ceased  ;  the  very  temper  that  prompted  them  would  have 
been  suppressed  ;  his  power  would  have  been  put  forth  for  good 
and  not  for  evil.'"  Here  everything  is  conceded.  The  possession 
of  despotic  power  is  thus  admitted  not  to  be  a  crime,  even  when 
it  extends  over  millions  of  men,  and  subjects  their  lives  as  well 
as  their  property  and  services  to  the  will  of  an  individual.  What 
becomes  then  of  the  arguments  and  denunciation  of  slavehold- 
ing,  which  is  despotism  on  a  small  scale  ?  Would  Mr.  Birney 
continue  in  the  deliberate  practice  of  a  crime  worse  than  rob- 
bery, piracy,  or  murder  ?  When  he  penned  the  above  sentiment, 
he  must  have  seen  that  neither  by  the  law  of  Grod  nor  of  reason 
is  it  necessarily  sinful  to  sustain  the  relation  of  master  over  oui 
'  Quoted  by  President  Young,  p.  45  of  the  Address,  &c. 


492  SLAVERY. 

fellow-creatures  ;  that  if  this  unlimited  authority  be  used  for  the 
good  of  those  over  whom  it  extends  and  for  the  glory  of  God,  its 
possessor  may  he  one  of  the  best  and  most  useful  of  men.  It  is 
the  abuse  of  this  power  for  base  and  selfish  purposes  which  con- 
stitutes criminality,  and  not  its  simple  possession.  He  may  say 
that  the  tendency  to  abuse  absolute  power  is  so  great  that  it  ought 
never  to  be  confided  to  the  hands  of  men.  This,  as  a  general 
rule,  is  no  doubt  true,  and  establishes  the  inexpediency  of  all 
despotic  governments  whether  for  the  state  or  the  family.  But 
it  leaves  the  morality  of  the  question  just  where  it  was,  and 
where  it  was  seen  to  be,  when  Mr.  Birney  said  he  could  with  a 
good  conscience  be  a  Roman  emperor,  i.  e.,  the  master  of  millions 
of  slaves. 

The  consideration  of  the  Old  Testament  economy  leads  us  to 
the  same  conclusion  on  this  subject.  It  is  not  denied  that  slavery 
was  tolerated  among  the  ancient  people  of  God.  Abraham  had 
servants  in  his  family  who  were  "  bought  with  his  money."  Gen. 
xvii.  13.  "  Abimelech  took  sheep  and  oxen,  and  men  servants, 
and  maid  servants,  and  gave  them  unto  Abraham."  Moses,  find- 
ing this  institution  among  the  Hebrews  and  all  surrounding 
nations,  did  not  abolish  it.  He  enacted  laws  directing  how  slaves 
were  to  be  treated,  on  what  conditions  they  were  to  be  liberated, 
under  what  circumstances  they  might  and  might  not  be  sold  ;  he 
recognizes  the  distinction  between  slaves  and  hired  servants, 
(Deut,  XV.  18) ;  he  speaks  of  the  way  by  which  these  bondmen 
might  be  procured  ;  as  by  war,  by  purchase,  by  the  right  of 
creditorship,  by  the  sentence  of  a  judge,  by  birth  ;  but  not  by 
seizing  on  those  who  were  free,  an  offence  punished  by  death.' 
The  fact  that  the  Mosaic  institutions  recognized  the  lawfulness  of 
slavery  is  a  point  too  plain  to  need  proof,  and  is  almost  univer- 
sally admitted.  Our  argument  from  this  acknowledged  fact  is, 
that  if  God  allowed  slavery  to  exist,  if  he  directed  how  slaves 
might  be  lawfully  acquired,  and  how  they  were  to  be  treated,  it 
is  in  vain  to  contend  that  slaveholding  is  a  sin,  and  yet  profess 
reverence  for  the  Scriptures.     Every  one  must  feel  that  if  perjury, 

'  Oa  the  manner  in  which  slaves  were  acquired,  compare  Deut.  xx.  14 ;  xxi.  10,  11. 
Ex.  xxii.  ?.  Nel).  v.  4,  5.  Gen.  xiv.  14 ;  xv.  3  ;  xviL  23.  Num.  xxxi.  18,  35.  Deut 
XXV.  44—46. 

As  to  the  manner  in  which  they  were  to  be  treated,  see  Lev.  xxv.  39-53.  Ex.  xx. 
10;    xxii.  2-8.     Deut  xxv.  4-6,  &c,  &c. 


SLAVERY.  493 

murder,  oi  idolatry  had  been  thus  authorized,  it  would  bring  the 
Mosaic  institutions  into  conflict  with  the  eternal  principles  of 
morals,  and  that  our  faith  in  the  divine  origin  of  one  or  the  other 
must  be  given  up. 

Dr.  Channing  says  of  this  argument  also,  that  it  proves  too 
much.  "  If  usages,  sanctioned  under  the  Old  Testament,  and 
not  forbidden  under  the  New,  are  right,  than  our  moral  code  will 
undergo  a  sad  deterioration.  Polygamy  was  allowed  to  the 
Israelites,  was  the  practice  of  the  holiest  men,  and  was  common 
and  licensed  in  the  age  of  the  apostles.  But  the  apostles  no 
where  condemn  it,  nor  was  the  renunciation  of  it  made  an  essen- 
tial condition  of  admission  into  the  Christian  church."  To  this 
we  answer,  that  so  far  as  polygamy  and  divorce  were  permitted 
under  the  old  dispensation,  they  were  lawful,  and  became  so  by 
that  permission  ;  and  they  ceased  to  be  lawful  when  the  permis- 
sion was  withdrawn,  and  a  new  law  given.  That  Christ  did  give 
a  new  law  on  this  subject  is  abundantly  evident.'  With  regard 
to  divorce,  it  is  as  explicit  as  language  can  make  it ;  and  with 
regard  to  polygamy  it  is  so  plain  as  to  have  secured  the  assent  of 
every  portion  of  the  Christian  church  in  all  ages.  The  very  fact 
that  there  has  been  no  diversity  of  opinion  or  practice  among  Chris- 
tians with  regard  to  polygamy,  is  itself  decisive  evidence  that  the 
will  of  Christ  was  clearly  revealed  on  the  subject.  The  tempta- 
tion to  continue  the  practice  was  as  strong,  both  from  the  passions 
of  men,  and  the  sanction  of  prior  ages,  as  in  regard  to  slavery. 
Yet  we  iind  no  traces  of  the  toleration  of  polygamy  in  the  Chris- 
tian church,  though  slavery  long  continued  to  prevail.  There  is 
no  evidence  that  the  apostles  admitted  to  the  fellowship  of  Chris- 
tians, those  vv^ho  were  guilty  of  this  infraction  of  the  law  of 
marriage.  It  is  indeed  possible  that  in  cases  where  the  converts 
had  already  more  than  one  wife,  the  connexion  was  not  broken 
off.     It  is  evident  this  must  have  occasioned  great  evil.     It  would 

' "  The  words  of  Christ  (Matt.  xix.  9)  may  be  construed  by  an  easy  implication  to 
prohibit  polygamy :  for  if  '  whoever  putteth  away  his  wife,  and  marrieth  another 
oommitteth  adultery,'  he  who  marrieth  another,  without  putting  away  the  first,  is  no 
less  guilty  of  adultery :  because  the  adultery  does  not  consist  in  the  repudiation  of 
the  first  wife  (for,  however  unjust  and  cruel  that  may  be,  it  is  not  adultery),  but  en- 
tering into  a  second  marriage  during  the  legal  existence  and  obligation  of  the  first. 
The  several  passages  in  St.  Paul's  writings,  which  speak  of  marriage,  always  suppose 
it  to  signify  the  union  of  one  man  with  one  woman." — Paley's  Moral  Philosophy, 
Book  III.  Chap.  6. 


494  SLAVERY. 

lead  to  the  breaking  up  of  families,  the  separation  of  parents  and 
children,  as  well  as  husbands  and  wives.  Under  these  circum- 
stances the  connexion  may  have  been  allowed  to  continue.  It  is, 
however,  very  doubtful  whether  even  this  was  permitted.'  It  is 
remarkable  that  among  the  numerous  cases  of  conscience  con- 
nected with  marriage,  submitted  to  the  apostles,  this  never 
occurs. 

Dr.  C banning  uses  language  much  too  strong  when  he  says 
that  polygamy  was  common  and  licensed  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles.  It  was  contrary  both  to  Roman  and  Grrecian  laws  and 
usages  until  the  most  degenerate  periods  of  the  history  of  those 
nations.  It  was  very  far  from  being  customary  among  the  Jews, 
though  it  might  have  been  allowed.  It  is  probable  that  it  was, 
therefore,  comparatively  extremely  rare  in  the  apostolic  age. 
This  accounts  for  the  fact  that  scarcely  any  notice  is  taken  of  the 
practice  in  the  New  Testament.  Wherever  marriage  is  spoken 
of,  it  seems  to  be  taken  for  granted,  as  a  well  understood  fact, 
that  it  was  a  contract  for  life  between  one  man  and  one  woman  ; 
compare  Rom.  vii.  2,  3  ;  1  Cor.  vii.  1,  2,  29.  It  is  further  to  be 
remarked  on  this  subject,  that  marriage  is  a  positive  institution. 
If  God  had  ordained  that  every  man  should  have  two  or  more 
wives,  instead  of  one,  polygamy  would  have  been  lawful.  But 
slaveholding  is  denounced  as  a  malum  in  se;  as  essentially  unjust 
and  wicked.  This  being  the  case,  it  could  at  no  period  of  the 
world  receive  the  divine  sanction,  much  less  could  it  have  con- 
tinued in  the  Christian  church  under  the  direction  of  inspired 
men,  when  there  was  nothing  to  prevent  its  immediate  abolition. 
The  answer,  then,  of  Dr.  Channing  is  unsatisfactory,  first,  be- 
cause polygamy  does  not  belong  to  the  same  category  in  morals 
as  that  to  which  slaveholding  is  affirmed  to  belong  ;  and  secondly, 
because  it  was  so  plainly  prohibited  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  as 
to  secure  the  assent  of  all  Christians  inallas-es  of  the  churcli. 

It  is,  however,  argued  that  slavery  must  be  sinful  because  it 
interferes  with  the  inalienable  rights  of  men.  We  have  already 
remarked,  that  slavery,  in  itself  considered,  is  a  state  of  bondage, 

*  As  monogamy  was  the  original  law  of  marriage,  as  it  was  expressly  enjoined  by 
Christ,  as  every  man  who  entered  the  Christian  church  prouiised  to  obey  the  law  of 
Christ,  it  is  to  us  inconceivable  that  the  apostles  admitted  polygamists  to  their  com- 
munion. Neither  the  New  Testament  nor  ecclesiastical  history  furnishes  any  evidence 
that  they  did  so. 


SLAVEKY.  495 

and  nothing  more.  It  is  the  condition  of  an  individual  who  is 
deprived  of  his  personal  liberty,  and  is  obliged  to  labor  for  another, 
who  has  the  right  to  transfer  this  claim  of  service,  at  pleasure. 
That  this  condition  involves  the  loss  of  many  of  the  rights  which 
are  commonly  and  properly  called  natural,  because  belonging  to 
men,  as  men,  is  readily  admitted.  It  is,  however,  incumbent  on 
those  who  maintain  that  slavery  is,  on  that  account,  necessarily 
sinful,  to  show  that  it  is  criminal,  under  all  circumstances,  to  de- 
prive any  set  of  men  of  a  portion  of  their  natural  rights.  That 
this  broad  proposition  cannot  be  maintained  is  evident.  The 
very  constitution  of  society  supposes  the  forfeiture  of  a  greater 
or  less  amount  of  these  rights,  according  to  its  peculiar  organiza- 
tion. That  it  is  not  only  the  privilege,  but  the  duty  of  men  to 
live  together  in  a  regularly  organized  society,  is  evident  from  the 
nature  which  God  has  given  us  ;  from  the  impossibility  of  every 
man  living  by  and  for  himself,  and  from  the  express  declarations 
of  the  word  of  God.  The  object  of  the  formation  of  society  is 
the  promotion  of  human  virtue  and  happiness  ;  and  the  form  in 
which  it  should  be  organized,  is  that  which  will  best  secure  the 
attainment  of  that  object.  As,  however,  the  condition  of  men  is 
so  very  various,  it  is  impossible  that  the  same  form  should  be 
equally  conducive  to  happiness  and  virtue  under  all  circumstan- 
ces. No  one  form,  therefore,  is  prescribed  in  the  Bible,  or  is 
universally  obligatory.  The  question,  which  form  is,  under  given 
circumstances,  to  be  adopted,  is  one  of  great  practical  difficulty, 
and  must  be  left  to  the  decision  of  those  who  have  the  power  to 
decide  on  their  own  responsibility.  The  question,  however,  does 
not  depend  upon  the  degree  in  which  these  several  forms  may  en- 
croach on  the  natural  rights  of  men.  In  the  patriarchal  age,  the 
most  natural,  the  most  feasible,  and  perhaps  the  most  beneficial 
form  of  government  was  by  the  head  of  the  family.  His  power 
by  the  law  of  nature,  and  the  necessity  of  the  case,  extended 
without  any  other  limit  than  the  general  principles  of  morals, 
over  his  children,  and  in  the  absence  of  other  regular  authority, 
would  not  terminate  when  the  children  arrived  at  a  particular 
age,  but  be  continued  during  life.  He  was  the  natural  umpire 
between  his  adult  offspring,  he  was  their  lawgiver  and  leader. 
His  authority  would  naturally  extend  over  -his  more  remote  de- 
scendants, as  they  continued  to  increase,  and  on  his  death,  might 
devolve  on  the  next  oldest  of  the  family.     There  is  surely  noth- 


496  SLAVERY. 

ing  in  this  mode  of  constituting  society  which  is  necessarily 
immoral.  If  found  to  be  conducive  to  the  general  good,  it  might 
be  indefinitely  continued.  It  would  not  suffice  to  render  its 
abrogation  obligatory,  to  say  that  all  men  are  born  free  and 
equal  ;  that  the  youth  of  twenty-one  had  as  good  a  right  to  have 
a  voice  in  the  affairs  of  the  family  as  the  aged  patriarch  ;  that 
the  right  of  self-government  is  indefeasible,  &c.  Unless  it  could 
be  shown  that  the  great  end  of  society  was  not  attainable  by  this 
mode  of  organization,  and  that  it  would  be  more  securely  pro- 
moted by  some  other,  it  would  be  an  immorality  to  require  or  to 
effect  the  change.  And  if  a  change  became,  in  the  course  of 
time,  obviously  desirable,  its  nature  and  extent  would  be  ques- 
tions to  be  determined  by  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the 
case,  and  not  by  the  rule  of  abstract  right.  Under  some  circum- 
stances it  might  be  requisite  to  confine  the  legislative  power  to  a 
single  individual  ;  under  others  to  the  hands  of  a  few  ;  and  un- 
der others  to  commit  it  to  the  whole  community.  It  would  be 
absurd  to  maintain,  on  the  ground  of  the  natural  equality  of 
men,  that  a  horde  of  ignorant  and  vicious  savages,  should  be 
organized  as  a  pure  democracy,  if  experience  taught  that  such  a 
form  of  government  was  destructive  to  themselves  and  others. 
These  different  modes  of  constituting  civil  society  are  not  neces- 
sarily either  just  or  unjust,  but  become  the  one  or  the  other 
according  to  circumstances  ;  and  their  morality  is  not  determined 
by  the  degree  in  which  they  encroach  upon  the  natural  rights  of 
men,  but  on  the  degree  in  which  they  promote  or  retard  the  prog- 
ress of  human  happiness  and  virtue.  In  this  country  we  believe 
that  the  general  good  requires  us  to  deprive  the  whole  female  sex 
of  the  right  of  self-government.  They  have  no  voice  in  the  for- 
mation of  the  laws  which  dispose  of  their  persons  and  property. 
When  married,  we  despoil  them  almost  entirely  of  a  legal  exist- 
ence, and  deny  them  some  of  the  most  essential  rights  of  property. 
We  treat  all  minors  much  in  the  same  way,  depriving  them  of 
many  personal  and  almost  all  political  rights,  and  that  too  though 
they  may  be  far  more  competent  to  exercise  them  aright  than 
many  adults.  We,  moreover,  decide  that  a  majority  of  one  may 
make  laws  for  the  whole  community,  no  matter  whether  the 
numerical  majority  have  more  wisdom  or  %'irtue  than  the  minor- 
ity or  not.  Our  plea  for  all  this  is,  that  the  good  of  the  whole 
is  thereby  most  effectually  promoted.     This  plea,  if  made  out, 


SLAVERY.  497 

justifies  the  case.  In  England  and  France  they  believe  that  the 
good  of  the  whole  requires  that  the  right  of  governing,  instead 
of  being  restricted  to  all  adult  males,  as  we  arbitrarily  deter- 
mine, should  be  confined  to  that  portion  of  the  male  population 
who  hold  a  given  amount  of  property.  In  Pruesia  and  Russia, 
they  believe,  with  equal  confidence,  that  public  security  and  hap- 
piness demand  that  all  power  should  be  in  the  hands  of  the 
king.  If  they  are  right  in  their  opinion,  they  are  right  in  their 
practice.  The  principle  that  social  and  political  organizations 
are  designed  for  the  general  good,  of  course  requires  they  should 
be  allowed  to  change,  as  the  progress  of  society  may  demand.  It 
is  very  possible  that  the  feudal  system  may  have  been  well  adapted 
to  the  state  of  Europe  in  the  middle  ages.  The  change  in  the 
condition  of  the  world,  however,  has  gradually  obliterated  almost 
all  its  features.  The  villain  has  become  the  independent  farmer  ; 
the  lord  of  the  manor,  the  simple  landlord  ;  and  the  sovereign 
liege,  in  whom,  according  to  the  fiction  of  the  system,  the  fee  of 
the  whole  country  vested,  has  become  a  constitutional  monarch. 
It  may  be  that  another  series  of  changes  may  convert  the  tenant 
into  an  owner,  the  lord  into  a  rich  commoner,  and  the  monarch 
into  a  president.  Though  these  changes  have  resulted  in  giving 
the  people  the  enjoyment  of  a  larger  portion  of  their  rights  than 
they  formerly  possessed,  it  is  not  hence  to  be  inferred  that  they 
ought  centuries  ago  to  have  been  inti-oduced  suddenly  or  by  vio- 
lence. Christianity  "  operates  as  an  alterative."  It  was  never 
designed  to  tear  up  the  institutions  of  society  by  the  roots.  It 
produces  equality  not  by  prostrating  trees  of  all  sizes  to  the 
ground,  but  by  securing  to  all  the  opportunity  of  growing,  and 
by  causing  all  to  grow,  until  the  original  disparity  is  no  longer 
perceptible.  All  attempts,  by  human  wisdom,  to  frame  society, 
of  a  sudden,  after  a  pattern  cut  by  the  rule  of  abstract  rights, 
have  failed  ;  and  whether  they  had  failed  or  not,  they  can  never 
be  urged  as  a  matter  of  moral  obligation.  It  is  not  enough  there- 
fore, in  order  to  prove  the  sinfulness  of  slaveholding,  to  show  that 
it  interferes  with  the  natural  rights  of  a  portion  of  the  commu- 
nity. It  is  in  this  respect  analogous  to  all  other  social  institu- 
tions. They  are  aU  of  them  encroachments  on  human  rights, 
from  the  freest  democracy  to  the  most  absolute  despotism. 

It  is  fm-ther  to  be  remarked  that  all  these  rights  suj^pose  cor- 
responding duties,  and  where  there  is  an  incompetence  for  the 

32 


408  SLAVERY. 

duty  tliey  claim  to  exercise,  the  ligbt  ceases.  No  man  can  justly 
claim  the  exercise  of  any  right  to  the  injury  of  the  community 
of  which  he  is  a  member.  It  is  because  females  and  minors  are 
judged  (though  for  different  reasons),  incompetent  to  the  proper 
discharge  of  the  duties  of  citizenship,  that  they  are  deprived  of 
the  right  of  suffrage.  It  is  on  the  same  principle  that  a  large 
portion  of  the  inhabitants  of  France  and  England  are  deprived 
of  the  same  privilege.  As  it  is  acknowledged  that  the  slaves 
may  be  justly  deprived  of  political  rights  on  the  ground  of  their 
incompetency  to  exercise  them  without  injury  to  the  community, 
it  must  be  admitted,  by  parity  of  reason,  that  they  may  be  justly 
deprived  of  personal  freedom,  if  incompetent  to  exercise  it  with 
safety  to  society.  If  this  be  so,  then  slavery  is  a  question  of  cir- 
cumstances, and  not  a  malmn  in  se.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  the  object  of  these  remarks  is  not  to  prove  that  the  Ameri- 
can, the  British,  or  the  Russian  form  of  society  is  expedient  or 
otherwise  ;  much  less  to  show  that  the  slaves  in  this  country  are 
actually  unfit  for  freedom,  but  simply  to  prove  that  the  mere 
fact  that  slaveholding  interferes  with  natural  rights  is  not  enough 
to  justify  the  conclusion  that  it  is  necessarily  and  universally  sinful. 
Another  very  common  and  plausible  argument  on  this  subject 
is,  that  a  man  cannot  be  made  a  matter  of  property.  He  cannot 
be  degraded  into  a  brute  or  chattel  without  the  grossest  violation 
of  duty  and  propriety  ;  and  that  as  slavery  confers  this  right  of 
property  in  human  beings,  it  must,  from  its  very  nature,  be  a 
crime.  We  acknowledge  the,  correctness  of  the  principle  on 
which  this  argument  is  founded,  but  deny  that  it  is  applicable  to 
the  case  in  hand.  We  admit  that  it  is  not  only  an  enormity,  but 
an  impossibility,  that  a  man  should  be  made  a  thing  as  distin- 
guished from  a  rational  and  moral  being.  It  is  not  within  the 
compass  of  human  law  to  alter  the  nature  of  God's  creatures.  A 
man  must  be  regarded  and  treated  as  a  rational  being  even  in  his 
greatest  degradation.  That  he  is,  in  some  countries,  and  under 
some  institutions,  deprived  of  many  of  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  such  a  being,  does  not  alter  his  nature.  He  must  be  viewed 
as  a  man  under  the  most  atrocious  system  of  slavery  that  ever 
existed.  Men  do  not  arraign  and  try  on  evidence,  and  punish  on 
conviction  either  things  or  brutes.  Yet  slaves  are  under  a  regu- 
lar system  of  laws  which,  however  unjust  they  may  be,  recognize 
their  character  as  accountable  beings.     When  it  is  inferred  from 


SLAVERY.  499 

the  fact  that  the  slave  is  called  the  property  of  his  master,  that 
he  is  thereby  degraded  from  his  rank  as  a  human  being,  the  argu- 
ment rests  on  the  vagueness  of  the  term  property.  Property  is 
the  right  of  possession  and  use,  and  must  of  necessity  vary  ac- 
cording to  the  nature  of  the  objects  to  which  it  attaches.  A 
man  has  property  in  his  wife,  in  his  children,  in  his  domestic  ani- 
mals, in  his  fields,  and  in  his  forests.  That  is,  he  has  the  right 
to  the  230Ssession  and  use  of  these  several  objects  according  to 
their  nature.  He  has  no  more  right  to  use  a  brute  as  a  log  of 
wood,  in  virtue  of  the  right  of  property,  than  he  has  the  right 
to  use  a  man  as  a  brute.  There  are  general  principles  of  recti- 
tude obligatory  on  all  men,  which  require  them  to  treat  all  the 
creatures  of  God  according  to  the  nature  which  he  has  given 
them.  The  man  who  should  burn  his  horse  because  he  was  his 
property,  would  find  no  justification  in  that  plea  either  before 
Grod  or  man.  When  therefore  it  is  said  that  one  man  is  the 
property  of  another,  it  can  only  mean  that  the  one  has  a  right  to 
use  the  other  as  a  man,  but  not  as  a  brute  or  as  a  thing.  He 
has  no  right  to  treat  him  as  he  may  la^vfully  treat  his  ox,  or  a  tree. 
He  can  convert  his  person  to  no  use  to  which  a  human  being  may 
not,  by  the  laws  of  God  and  nature,  be  properly  applied.  When 
this  idea  of  property  comes  to  be  analyzed,  it  is  found  to  be  noth- 
ing more  than  a  claim  of  service  either  for  life  or  for  a  term  of 
years.  This  clami  is  transferable,  and  is  of  the  nature  of  prop- 
erty, and  is  consequently  liable  for  the  debts  of  the  owner,  and 
subject  to  his  disposal  by  will  or  otherwise.  It  is  probable  that 
the  slave  is  called  the  property  of  his  master  in  the  statute 
books,  for  the  same  reason  that  children  are  called  the  servants 
of  their  parents,  or  that  wives  are  said  to  be  the  same  person  with 
their  husbands  and  to  have  no  separate  existence  of  their  own. 
These  are  mere  technicalities  designed  to  facilitate  certain  legal 
proceedings.  Calling  a  child*  a  servant  does  not  alter  his  relation 
to  his  father  ;  and  a  wife  is  still  a  woman  though  the  courts  may 
rule  her  out  of  existence.  In  like  manner,  where  the  law  declares 
that  the  slave  shall  be  deemed  and  adjudged  to  be  a  chattel  per- 
sonal in  the  hands  of  his  master,  it  does  not  alter  his  nature,  nor 
does  it  confer  on  the  master  any  right  to  use  him  in  a  manner 
inconsistent  with  that  nature.  As  there  are  certain  moral  prin- 
ciples which  direct  how  brutes  are  to  be  used  by  those  to  whom 
they  belong,  so  there  are  fixed  principles  which  determine  how  a 


500  SLAVERY. 

man  may  be  used.  These  legal  enactments,  therefore,  are  not 
intended  to  legislate  away  the  nature  of  the  slave  as  a  human 
being  ;  they  serve  to  facilitate  the  transfer  of  the  master's  claim 
of  service,  and  to  render  that  claim  the  more  readily  liable  for 
his  debts.  The  transfer  of  authority  and  claim  of  service  from 
one  master  to  another,  is,  in  principle,  analogous  to  transfer  of 
subjects  from  one  sovereign  to  another.  This  is  a  matter  of  fre- 
quent occurrence.  By  the  treaty  of  Vienna,  for  example,  a  large 
part  of  the  inhabitants  of  central  Europe  changed  masters. 
Nearly  half  of  Saxony  was  transferred  to  Prussia  ;  Belgium  was 
annexed  to  Holland.  In  like  manner  Louisiana  was  transferred 
from  France  to  the  United  States.  In  none  of  these  cases  were 
the  people  consulted.  Yet  in  all  a  claim  of  service  more  or  less 
extended  was  made  over  from  one  power  to  another.  There  was 
a  change  of  masters.  The  mere  transferable  character  of  the 
master's  claim  to  the  slave  does  not  convert  the  latter  into  a 
thing,  or  degrade  him  from  his  rank  as  a  human  being.  Nor 
does  the  fact  that  he  is  bound  to  serve  for  life  produce  this  effect. 
It  is  only  property  in  his  time  for  life,  instead  of  for  a  term  of 
years.  The  nature  of  the  relation  is  not  determined  by  the  period 
of  its  continuance. 

It  has,  however,  been  argued  that  the  slave  is  the  property  of 
his  master,  not  only  in  the  sense  admitted  above,  but  in  the 
sense  assumed  in  the  objection,  because  his  children  are  under 
the  same  obligation  of  service  as  the  parent.  The  hereditary 
character  of  slavery,  however,  does  not  arise  out  of  the  idea  of 
the  slave  as  a  chattel  or  thing,  a  mere  matter  of  property,  it  de- 
pends on  the  organization  of  society.  In  England  one  man  is 
born  a  peer,  another  a  commoner  ;  in  Eussia  one  is  bom  a  noble, 
another  a  serf ;  here  one  is  born  a  free  citzen,  another  a  disfran- 
chised outcast  (the  free  colored  man),  and  a  third  a  slave.  These 
forms  of  society,  as  before  remarked,  are  not  necessarily,  or  in 
themselves,  either  just  or  unjust ;  but  become  the  one  or  the  other, 
according  to  circumstances.  Under  a  state  of  things  in  which  the 
best  interests  of  the  community  would  be  promoted  by  the  British 
or  Russian  organization,  they  would  be  just  and  acceptable  to  God  ; 
but  under  circumstances  in  which  they  would  be  injurious,  they 
would  be  unjust.  It  is  absolutely  necessary,however,  to  discriminate 
between  an  organization  essentially  vicious,  and  one  which,  being 
in  itself  indifferent,  may  be  right  or  wrong  according  to  circum- 


SLAVERY.  501 

stances.  On  the  same  principle,  therefore,  that  a  human  being 
in  England  is  deprived,  by  the  mere  accident  of  birth,  of  the 
right  of  suffrage  ;  and  in  Kussia  has  the  small  portion  of  liberty 
which  belongs  to  a  commoner,  or  the  still  smaller  belonging  to  a 
serf,  in  this  country  one  class  is  by  birth  invested  with  all  the 
rights  of  citizenship,  another  (females)  is  deprived  of  all  political 
and  many  personal  rights,  and  a  third  of  even  their  personal  lib- 
erty. Whether  this  organization  be  right  or  wrong  is  not  now 
the  question.  We  are  simply  showing  that  the  fact  that  the 
children  of  slaves  become  by  birth  slaves,  is  not  to  be  referred  to 
the  idea  of  the  master's  property  in  the  body  and  soul  of  the 
parent,  but  results  from  the  form  of  society,  and  is  analogous  to 
other  social  institutions,  as  far  as  the  principle  is  concerned,  that 
children  take  the  rank,  or  the  political,  or  social,  condition  of  the 
parent. 

We  prefer  being  charged  with  the  sin  of  wearisome  repetition, 
to  leaving  any  room  for  the  misapprehension  of  our  meaning. 
We,  therefore,  again  remark,  that  we  are  discussing  the  mere  ab- 
stract morality  of  these  forms  of  social  organization,  and  not  their 
expediency.  We  have  in  view  the  vindication  of  the  character 
of  the  inspired  writings,  and  inspired  men,  from  the  charge  of 
having  overlooked  the  blackest  of  human  crimes,  and  of  having 
recognized  the  worst  of  human  beings  as  Christians.  We  say, 
therefore,  that  an  institution  which  deprives  a  certain  portion  of 
the  community  of  their  personal  liberty,  places  tliem  under  obli- 
gation of  service  to  another  portion,  is  no  more  necessarily  sinful 
than  one  which  invests  an  individual  with  despotic  power  (such 
as  Mr.  Birney  would  consent  to  hold)  ;  or  than  one  which  limits 
the  right  of  government  to  a  small  portion  of  the  people,  or  re- 
stricts it  to  the  male  part  of  the  community.  However  inexpe- 
dient, under  certain  circumstances,  any  one  of  these  arrangements 
may  be.  they  are  not  necessarily  immoral,  nor  do  they  become 
such,  from  the  fact  that  the  accident  of  birth  determines  the  re- 
lation in  which  one  part  of  the  community  is  to  stand  to  the 
other.  In  ancient  Egypt,  as  in  modern  India,  birth  decided  the 
position  and  profession  of  every  individual.  One,  was  born  a 
priest,  another  a  merchant,  another  a  laborer,  another  a  soldier. 
As  there  must  always  be  these  classes,  it  is  no  more  necessarily 
immoral,  to  have  them  all  determined  by  hereditary  descent, 
than  it  was  among  the  Israelites  to  have  all  the  officers  of  re- 


502  SLAVERY. 

ligion,  from  generation  to  generation,  thus  determined  ;  or  that 
birth  should  determine  the  individual  who  is  to  fill  a  throne,  or 
occupy  a  seat  in  parliament. 

Again,  Dr.  Wayland  argues,  if  the  right  to  hold  slaves  be  con- 
ceded, "  there  is  of  course  conceded  all  other  rights  necessary  to 
insure  its  possession.  Hence,  inasmuch  as  the  slave  can  be  held 
in  this  condition  only  while  he  remains  in  the  lowest  state  of 
mental  imbecility,  it  supposes  the  master  to  have  the  right  to 
control  his  intellectual  development  just  as  far  as  may  be  neces- 
sary to  secure' entire  subjection.'"  He  reasons  in  the  same  way, 
to  show  that  the  religious  knowledge  and  even  eternal  happiness  of 
the  slave,  are  as  a  matter  of  right  conceded  to  the  power  of  the 
master,  if  the  right  of  slaveholding  is  admitted.  The  utmost 
force  that  can  be  allowed  to  this  argument  is,  that  the  right  to 
hold  slaves  includes  the  right  to  exercise  all  proper  means  to 
insure  its  possession.  It  is  in  this  respect  on  a  par  with  all  other 
rights  of  the  same  kind.  The  right  of  parents  to  the  service  of 
their  children,  of  husbands  to  the  obedience  of  their  wives,  of 
masters  over  their  apprentices,  of  creditors  over  their  debtors,  of 
rulers  over  their  subjects,  all  suppose  the  right  to  adopt  proper 
means  for  its  secure  enjoyment.  This,  however,  gives  no  sanc- 
tion to  the  employment  of  any  and  every  means  which  cruelty, 
suspicion,  or  jealousy  may  choose  to  deem  necessary,  nor  of  any 
which  would  be  productive  of  greater  general  evil  than  the  for- 
feiture of  the  rights  themselves.  According  to  the  ancient  law, 
even  among  the  Jews,  the  power  of  life  and  death  was  granted  to 
the  parent ;  we  concede  only  the  power  of  correction.  The  old 
law  gave  the  same  power  to  the  husband  over  the  wife.  The 
Roman  law  confided  the  person  and  even  life  of  the  debtor  to  the 
mercy  of  the  creditor.  According  to  the  reasoning  of  Dr.  Way- 
land,  all  these  laws  must  be  sanctioned  if  the  rights  which  they 
were  deemed  necessary  to  secure  are  acknowledged.  It  is  clear, 
however,  that  the  most  unrighteous  means  maybe  adopted  to  secure 
a  proper  end,  under  the  plea  of  necessity.  The  justice  of  the 
plea  must  be  made  out  on  its  own  grounds,  and  cannot  be  assumed 
on  the  mere  admission  of  the  propriety  of  the  end  aimed  at. 
Whether  the  slaves  in  this  country  may  be  safely  admitted  to  the 
enjoyment  of  personal  hberty,  is  a  matter  of  dispute  ;  but  that 
they  could  not,  consistently  with  the  public  welfare,  be  entrusted 

"  Elements  of  Moral  Science,  p.  221. 


SLAVERY.  503 

with  the  exercise  of  political  power,  is  on  all  hands  admitted.  It 
is,  then,  the  acknowledged  right  of  the  State  to  govern  them  by 
laws  in  the  formation  of  which  they  have  no  voice.  But  it  is  the 
universal  plea  of  the  depositaries  of  irresponsible  power,  sus- 
tained too  by  almost  universal  experience,  that  men  can  be 
brought  to  submit  to  political  despotism  only  by  being  kept  in 
ignorance  and  poverty.  Dr.  Wayland,  then,  if  he  concedes  the 
right  01  the  State  to  legislate  for  the  slaves,  must,  according  to 
his  own  reasoning,  acknowledge  the  right  to  adopt  all  the  means 
necessary  for  the  security  of  this  irresponsible  power,  and  of  con- 
sequence that  the  State  has  the  right  to  keep  the  blacks  in  the 
lowest  state  of  degradation.  If  he  denies  the  validity  of  this 
argument  in  favor  of  political  despotism,  he  must  renounce  his 
own  argument  against  the  lawfulness  of  domestic  slavery.  Dr. 
Wayland  himself  would  admit  the  right  of  the  Emperor  of  Kus- 
sia  to  exercise  a  degree  of  power  over  his  present  half  civilized 
subjects,  which  could  not  be  maintained  over  an  enlightened 
people,  though  he  would  be  loath  to  acknowledge  his  right  to 
adopt  all  the  means  necessary  to  keep  them  in  their  present  con- 
dition. The  acknowledgment,  therefore,  of  the  right  to  hold 
slaves,  does  not  involve  the  acknowledgment  of  the  right  to  adopt 
measures  adapted  and  intended  to  perpetuate  their  present  men- 
tal and  physical  degradation. 

We  have  entered  much  more  at  length  into  the  abstract  argu- 
ment on  this  subject  than  we  intended.  It  was  our  purpose  to 
confine  our  remarks  to  the  scriptural  \'iew  of  the  question.  But 
the  considerations  of  the  objections  derived  from  the  general  prin- 
ciples of  morals,  rendered  it  necessary  to  enlarge  our  plan.  As  it 
appears  to  us  too  clear  to  admit  of  either  denial  or  doubt,  that 
the  Scriptures  do  sanction  slaveholding  ;  that  und^er  the  old  dis- 
pensation it  was  expressly  permitted  by  divine  command,  and 
under  the  New  Testament  is  nowhere  forbidden  or  denounced, 
but  on  the  contrary,  acknowledged  to  be  consistent  with  the 
Christian  character  and  profession  (that  is,  consistent  with  justice, 
mercy,  holiness,  love  to  God  and  love  to  man),  to  declare  it  to  be 
a  heinous  crime,  is  a  direct  impeachment  of  the  word  of  Grod. 
We,  therefore,  felt  it  incumbent  upon  us  to  prove,  that  the  sacred 
Scriptures  are  not  in  conflict  with  the  first  principles  of  morals  ; 
that  what  they  sanction  is  not  the  blackest  and  basest  of  all  of- 
ences  in  the  sight  of  God.     To  do  this,  it  was  necessary  to  show 


504  SLAVERY, 

what  slavery  is,  to  distinguish  between  the  relation  itself,  and 
the  various  cruel  or  unjust  laws  which  may  be  made  either  to 
bring  men  into  it,  or  to  secure  its  continuance  ;  to  show  that  it 
no  more  follows  from  the  admission  that  the  Scripture  sanctions 
the  right  of  slavcholding,  that  it,  therefore,  sanctions  all  the 
oppressive  slave  laws  of  any  community,  than  it  follows  from  the 
admission  of  the  propriety  of  parental,  conjugal,  or  political  re- 
lations, that  it  sanctions  all  the  conflicting  codes  by  which  these 
relations  have  at  ditferent  periods,  and  in  different  countries,  been 
regulated. 

We  have  had  another  motive  in  the  preparation  of  this  arti- 
cle. The  assumption  that  slavcholding  is  itself  a  crime,  is  not 
only  an  error,  but  it  is  an  error  fraught  with  evil  consequences. 
It  not  merely  brings  its  advocates  into  conflict  with  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  it  does  much  to  retard  the  progress  of  freedom  ;  it 
embitters  and  divides  the  members  of  the  community,  and  dis- 
tracts the  Christian  church.  Its  operation  in  retarding  the 
progress  of  freedom  is  obvious  and  manifold.  In  the  first  place, 
it  directs  the  battery  of  the  enemies  of  slavery  to  the  wrong 
point.  It  might  be  easy  for  them  to  establish  the  injustice  or 
cruelty  of  certain  sla,ve  laws,  where  it  is  not  in  their  power  to 
establish  the  sinfulness  of  slavery  itself.  They,  therefore,  waste 
their  strength.  Nor  is  this  the  least  evil.  They  promote  the 
cause  of  their  opponents.  If  they  do  not  discriminate  between 
slavcholding  and  the  slave  laws,  it  gives  the  slaveholder  not 
merely  an  excuse  but  an  occasion  and  a  reason  for  making  no 
such  distinction.  He  is  thus  led  to  feel  the  same  conviction  in 
the  propriety  of  the  one  that  he  docs  in  that  of  the  other.  His 
mind  and  conscience  may  be  satisfied  that  the  mere  act  of  hold- 
ing slaves  is  not  a  crime.  This  is  the  point,  however,  to  which 
the  abolitionist  directs  his  attention.  He  examines  their  argu- 
ments, and  becomes  convinced  of  their  inconclusiveness,  and  is 
not  only  thus  rendered  impervious  to  their  attacks,  but  is  exasper- 
ated by  what  he  considers  their  unmerited  abuse.  In  the  mean- 
time his  attention  is  withdrawn  from  far  more  important  points  ; 
the  manner  in  which  he  treats  his  slaves,  and  the  laws  enacted  for 
the  security  of  his  possession.  These  are  points  on  which  his 
judgment  might  be  much  more  readily  convinced  of  error,  and  his 
conscience  of  sin. 

In  the  second  place,  besides  fortifying  the  position  and  strength- 


SLAVEKT.  505 

ening  the  purpose  of  the  slaveholder,  the  error  in  question  divides 
and  weakens  the  friends  of  freedom.  To  secure  any  valuable  re- 
sult by  public  sentiment,  you  must  satisfy  the  public  mind  and 
rouse  the  public  conscience.  Their  passions  had  better  be  allowed 
to  rest  in  peace.  As  the  anti-slavery  societies  declare  it  to  be 
their  object  to  convince  their  fellow- citizens  that  slaveholding  is 
necessarily  a  heinous  crime  in  the  sight  of  God,  we  consider  their 
attempt  as  desperate,  so  long  as  the  Bible  is  regarded  as  the  ride 
of  right  and  wrong.  They  can  hardly  secure  either  the  verdict 
of  the  public  mind  or  of  the  public  conscience  in  behalf  of  this 
proposition.  Their  success  hitherto  has  not  been  very  encouraging, 
and  is  certainly  not  very  flattering,  if  Dr.  Channing's  account  of  the 
class  of  persons  to  whom  they  have  principally  addressed  their 
arguments,  is  correct.  The  tendency  of  their  exertions,  be  their 
success  great  or  small,  is  not  to  unite,  but  to  divide.  They  do 
not  carry  the  judgment  or  conscience  of  the  people  with  them. 
They  form,  therefore,  a  class  by  themselves.  Thousands  who 
earnestly  desire  to  see  the  South  convinced  of  the  injustice  and 
conseqaent  impolicy  of  their  slave  laws,  and  under  this  conviction, 
of  their  own  accord,  adopting  those  principles  which  the  Bible 
enjoins,  and  which  tend  to  produce  universal  intelligence,  virtue, 
liberty  and  equality,  without  violence  and  sudden  change,  and 
which  thus  secure  private  and  public  prosperity,  stand  aloof  from 
the  abolitionists,  not  merely  because  they  disapprove  of  their 
spirit  and  mode  of  action,  but  because  they  do  not  admit  their 
fundamental  principle. 

In  the  third  place,  the  error  in  question  prevents  the  adoption 
of  the  most  effectual  means  of  extinguishing  the  evil.  These 
means  are  not  the  opinions  or  feelings  of  the  non-slaveholding 
States,  nor  the  denunciations  of  the  holders  of  slaves,  but  the 
improvement,  intellectual  and  moral,  of  the  slaves  themselves. 
Slavery  has  but  two  natural  and  peaceful  modes  of  death.  The 
one  is  the  increase  of  the  slave  population  until  it  reaches  the 
point  of  being  unproductive.  When  the  number  of  slaves  be- 
comes so  great  that  the  master  cannot  profitably  employ  them, 
he  manumits  them  in  self-defence.  This  point  would  probably 
have  been  reached  long  ago,  in  many  of  the  southern  States,  had 
not  the  boundless  extent  of  the  south-western  section  of  the 
Union  presented  a  constant  demand  for  the  surplus  hands 
Many  planters  in  Virginia  and  Maryland,  whose  piinciples  or 


506  S  L  A.  V  E  R  Y . 

feelings  revolt  at  tlie  idea  of  selling  their  slaves  to  the  SoutJi, 
find  that  their  servants  are  gradually  reducing  them  to  poverty, 
by  consuming  more  than  they  produce.  The  number,  however, 
of  slaveholders  who  entertain  these  scruples  is  comparatively 
small.  And  as  the  demand  for  slave-labor  in  the  still  unoccupied 
regions  of  the  extreme  south-west  is  so  great,  and  is  likely  to  be 
80  long  continued,  it  is  hopeless  to  think  of  slavery  dying  out  by 
becoming  a  public  burden.  The  other  natural  and  peaceful  mode 
of  extinction,  is  the  gradual  elevation  of  the  slaves  in  knowledge, 
virtue  and  property  to  the  point  at  which  it  is  no  longer  desirable 
or  possible  to  keep  them  in  bondage.  Their  chains  thus  gradu- 
ally relax,  until  they  fall  off  entirely.  It  is  in  this  way  that  Chris- 
tianity has  abolished  both  political  and  domestic  bondage,  when- 
ever it  has  had  free  scope.  It  enjoins  a  fair  compensation  for 
labor  ;  it  insists  on  the  moral  and  intellectual  improvement  of  all 
classes  of  men  ;  it  condemns  all  infractions  of  marital  or  parental 
rights  ;  in  short,  it  requires  not  only  that  free  scope  should  be 
allowed  to  human  improvement,  but  that  all  suitable  means 
should  be  employed  for  the  attainment  of  that  end.  The  feudal 
system,  as  before  remarked,  has,  in  a  great  measure,  been  thus 
outgrown  in  all  European  states.  The  third  estate,  formerly 
hardly  recognized  as  having  an  existence,  is  becoming  the  con- 
trolling power  in  most  of  those  ancient  communities.  The 
gradual  improvement  of  the  people  rendered  it  impossible  and 
undesirable  to  deprive  them  of  their  just  share  in  the  government. 
And  it  is  jirecisely  in  those  countries  where  this  improvement  is 
most  advanced,  that  the  feudal  institutions  are  the  most  completely 
obliterated,  and  the  general  prosperity  the  greatest.  In  like  man- 
ner the  gospel  method  of  extinguishing  slavery  is  by  improving  the 
condition  of  the  slave.  The  grand  question  is,  How  is  this  to  be 
done  ?  The  abolitionist  answers,  by  immediate  emancipation. 
Perhaps  he  is  right,  perhaps  he  is  wrong  ;  but,  whether  right  or 
■wrong,  it  is  not  the  practical  question  for  the  North.  Among  a  com- 
munity which  have  the  power  to  emancipate,  it  would  be  perfectly 
proper  to  urge  that  measure  on  the  ground  of  its  being  the  best 
means  of  promoting  the  great  object  of  the  advancement  of 
human  hapi)iness  and  virtue.  '  But  the  error  of  the  abolitionists 
is,  that  they  urge  this  measure  from  the  wrong  quarter,  and  upon 
the  wrong  ground.  They  insist  upon  immediate  abolition  because 
slavery  is  a  sin,  and  its  extinction  a  duty.     If,  however,  slave- 


SLAVERY.  507 

holding  is  not  in  itself  sinful,  its  abolition  is  not  necessarily  a 
duty.  The  question  of  duty  depends  upon  tlie  efiects  of  the 
measure,  about  which  men  may  honestly  differ.  Those  who  be- 
lieve that  it  would  advance  the  general  good,  are  bound  to  pro- 
mote it ;  while  those  who  believe  the  reverse,  are  equally  bound 
to  resist  it.  The  abolitionists,  by  insisting  upon  one  means  of 
improvement,  and  that  on  untenable  ground,  are  most  effectually 
working  against  the  adoption  of  any  other  means,  by  destroying 
the  disposition  and  the  power  to  employ  them.  It  is  in  this  way 
that  the  error  to  which  we  have  referred  throughout  this  article, 
is  operating  most  disadvantageously  for  the  cause  of  human 
liberty  and  happiness.  The  fact  is,  that  the  great  duty  of  the 
South,  is  not  emancipation,  but  improvement.  The  former  is 
obligatory  only  as  a  means  to  an  end,  and,  therefore,  only  under 
circumstances  where  it  would  promote  that  end.  In  like  manner 
the  great  duty  of  despotic  governments  is  not  the  immediate 
granting  of  free  institutions,  but  the  constant  and  assiduous  cul- 
tivation of  the  best  interests  (knowledge,  virtue,  and  happiness) 
of  the  people.  Where  free  institutions  would  conduce  to  this 
object,  they  should  be  granted,  and  just  so  far  and  so  fast  as  this 
becomes  apparent. 

Again,  the  opinion  that  slaveholding  is  itself  a  crime,  must 
operate  to  produce  the  disunion  of  the  States,  and  the  division 
of  all  ecclesiastical  societies  in  this  country.  The  feelings  of  the 
people  may  be  excited  violently  for  a  time,  but  the  transport 
soon  passes  away.  But  if  the  conscience  is  enlisted  in  the  cause, 
and  becomes  the  controlling  principle,  the  alienation  between  the 
North  and  the  South  must  become  permanent.  The  opposition 
to  southern  institutions  will  be  calm,  constant,  and  una^ipeasable. 
Just  so  far  as  this  ojnnion  operates,  it  will  lead  those  who  enter- 
tain it  to  submit  to  any  sacrifice  to  carry  it  out,  and  give  it  effect. 
We  shall  become  two  nations  in  feeling,  which  must  soon  render 
us  two  nations  in  fact.  With  regard  to  the  church,  its  operation 
will  be  much  more  summary.  If  slaveholding  is  a  heinous  crime, 
slaveholders  must  be  excluded  from  the  church.  Several  of  our 
judicatories  have  already  taken  this  position.  Should  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  adopt  it,  the  church  is,  ipso  facto,  divided.  If  the 
opinion  in  question  is  correct,  it  must  bo  maintained,  whatever 
are  the  consequences.  We  are  no  advocates  of  expediency  in 
morals.     We  have  no  more  right  to  teach  error  in  order  to  pre- 


508  SLAVERY. 

vent  evil,  than  we  have  a  right  to  do  evil  to  promote  good.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  the  opinion  is  incorrect,  its  evil  consequences 
render  it  a  duty  to  prove  and  exhibit  its  unsoundness.  It  is 
under  the  deep  impression  that  the  primary  assumption  of  the 
abolitionist  is  an  error,  that  its  adoption  tends  to  the  distraction 
of  the  country,  and  the  division  of  the  church  ;  and  that  it  will 
lead  to  the  longer  continuance  and  greater  severity  of  slavery, 
that  we  have  felt  constrained  to  do  what  little  we  could  towards 
its  correction. 

We  have  little  apprehension  that  any  one  can  so  far  mistake 
our  object,  or  the  purport  of  our  remarks,  as  to  suppose  either 
that  we  regard  slavery  as  a  desirable  institution,  or  that  we  ap- 
prove of  the  slave  laws  of  the  southern  States.  So  far  from  this 
being  the  case,  the  extinction  of  slavery,  and  the  amelioration  of 
those  laws  are  as  sincerely  desired  by  us,  as  by  any  t)f  the  abo- 
litionists. The  question  is  not  about  the  continuance  of  slavery, 
and  of  the  present  system,  but  about  the  proper  method  of  eflect- 
ing  the  removal  of  the  evil.  We  maintain,  that  it  is  not  by 
denouncing  slaveholding  as  a  sin,  or  by  universal  agitation  at  the 
North,  but  by  the  improvement  of  the  slaves.  It  no  more  fol- 
lows that  because  the  master  has  a  right  to  hold  slaves,  he  has 
a  right  to  keep  them  in  a  state  of  degradation  in  order  to  per- 
petuate their  bondage,  than  that  the  Emperor  of  Russia  has  a  right 
to  keep  his  subjects  in  ignorance  and  poverty,  in  order  to  secure 
the  permanence  and  quiet  possession  of  his  power.  We  hold  it 
to  be  the  grand  principle,  of  the  gospel,  that  every  man  is  bound 
to  promote  the  moral,  intellectual,  and  physical  improvement  of 
his  fellow  men.  Their  civil  or  political  relations  are  in  themselves 
matters  of  indifference.  Monarchy,  aristocracy,  democracy,  do- 
mestic slavery,  are  right  or  wrong  as  they  are,  for  the  time  being, 
conducive  to  this  great  end,  or  the  reverse.  They  are  not  objects 
to  which  the  improvement  of  society  is  to  be  sacrificed  ;  nor  are 
they  strait-jackets  to  be  j)laced  upon  the  public  body  to  prevent 
its  free  development.  We  think,  therefore,  that  the  true  method 
for  Christians  to  treat  this  subject,  is  to  follow  the  example  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles  in  relation  both  to  despotism  and  slavery. 
Let  them  enforce  as  moral  duties  the  great  principles  of  justice 
and  mercy,  and  all  the  specific  commands  and  precepts  of  the 
Scriptures.  If  any  set  of  men  have  servants,  bond  or  free,  to 
whom  they  refuse  a  proper  compensation  for  their  labor,  they 


SLAVERY.  509 

violate  a  moral  duty  and  an  express  command  of  Scripture. 
What  that  compensation  should  be,  depends  on  a  variety  of  cir- 
cumstances. In  some  cases  the  slaveholder  would  be  glad  to 
compound  for  the  support  of  his  slaves  by  giving  the  third  or 
half  of  the  proceeds  of  his  estate.  Yet  this  at  the  North  would 
be  regarded  as  a  full  remuneration  for  the  mere  labor  of  produc- 
tion. Under  other  circumstances,  however,  a  mere  support  would 
be  very  inadequate  comjjensation  ;  and  when  inadequate,  it  is 
unjust.  If  the  compensation  be  more  than  a  support  the  surplus 
is  the  property  of  the  laborer,  and  cannot  morally,  whatever 
the  laws  may  say,  be  taken  from  him.  The  right  to  accumulate 
proj)erty  is  an  incident  to  the  right  of  reward  for  labor.  And 
we  believe  there  are  few  slaveholding  countries  in  which  the  right 
is  not  practically  acknowledged,  since  we  hear  so  frequently  of 
slaves  purchasing  their  own  freedom.  It  is  very  common  for  a 
certain  moderate  task'  to  be  assigned  as  a  day's  work,  which  may 
be  regarded  as  the  compensation  rendered  by  the  slave  for  his 
support.  The  residue  of  the  day  is  at  his  own  disposal,  and  may 
be  employed  for  his  own  profit.  We  are  not,  however,  concerned 
about  details.  The  principle  that  "  the  laborer  is  worthy  of  his 
hire"  and  should  enjoy  it,  is  a  plain  j^rinciple  of  morals  and  com- 
mand of  the  Bible,  and  cannot  be  violated  with  impunity. 

Again,  if  any  man  has  servants  or  others  whom  he  forbids  to 
marry,  or  whom  he  separates  after  marriage,  he  breaks  as  clearly 
a  revealed  law  as  any  written  on  the  pages  of  inspiration,  or  on 
the  human  heart.  If  he  interfere  unnecessarily  with  the  author- 
ity of  parents  over  their  children,  he  again  brings  himself  into 
collision  with  his  Maker.  If  any  man  has  under  his  charge, 
children,  apprentices,  servants,  or  slaves,  and  does  not  teach  them, 
or  cause  them  to  be  taught,  the  will  of  God  ;  if  he  deUberately 
opposes  their  intellectual,  moral,  or  religious  improvement,  he 
makes  himself  a  transgressor.  That  many  of  the  laws  of  the 
slaveholding  States  are  opposed  to  these  simple  principles  of 
morals,  we  fully  believe  ;  and  we  do  not  doubt  that  they  are  sin- 
ful and  ought  to  be  rescinded.  If  it  be  asked  what  would  be  the 
consequence  of  thus  acting  on  the  principles  of  the  gospel,  of 
following  the  example  and  obeying  the  precepts  of  Christ  ?  We 

'  "We  heard  the  late  Dr.  Wisner,  after  his  long  visit  to  the  South,  say,  that  the 
usual  task  of  a  slave,  in  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  was  about  the  third  of  a  day's 
work  for  a  northern  laborer. 


510  SLAVERY. 

answer,  the  gradual  elevation  of  the  slaves  in  intelligence,  virtue, 
and  wealth  ;  the  peaceable  and  speedy  extinction  of  slavery  :  the 
improvement  in  general  prosperity  of  all  classes  of  society,  and 
the  consequent  increase  in  the  sum  of  human  happiness  and  vir- 
tue. This  has  been  the  result  of  acting  on  these  principles  in  all 
past  ages  ;  and  just  in  proportion  as  they  have  been  faithfully 
observed.  The  degradation  of  most  eastern  nations,  and  of  Italy, 
Spain,  and  Ireland,  are  not  more  striking  examples  of  the  conse- 
quences of  their  violation,  than  Scotland,  England,  and  the  non- 
slaveholding  States  are  of  the  benefits  of  their  being  even  im- 
perfectly obeyed.  Men  cannot  alter  the  laws  of  God.  It  would 
be  as  easy  for  them  to  arrest  the  action  of  the  force  of  gravity,  as 
to  prevent  the  systematic  violation  of  the  principles  of  morals 
being  productive  of  evil. 

Besides  the  two  methods  mentioned  above,  in  which  slavery 
dies  a  natural  and  easy  death,  there  are  two  others  by  which,  as 
history  teaches  us,  it  may  be  brought  to  an  end.  The  one  is 
by  the  non-slaveholders,  in  virtue  of  their  authority  in  the  State 
to  which  the  slaves  and  their  masters  belonged,  passing  laws  for 
its  extinction.  Of  this,  the  northern  States,  and  Great  Britain, 
are  examples.  The  other  is  by  servile  insurrections.  The  former 
of  these  two  methods  is  of  course  out  of  the  question,  as  it  re- 
gards most  of  the  southern  States  ;  for  in  almost  all  of  them  the 
slaveowners  have  the  legislative  power  in  their  own  hands.  The 
South,  therefore,  has  to  choose  between  emancipation  by  the 
silent  and  holy  influence  of  the  gospel,  securing  the  elevation  of 
the  slaves  to  the  stature  and  character  of  freemen,  or  to  abide 
the  issue  of  a  long  continued  conflict  against  the  laws  of  God. 
That  the  issue  will  be  disastrous  there  can  be  no  doubt.  But 
whether  it  will  come  in  the  form  of  a  desolating  servile  insurrec- 
tion, or  in  some  other  shape,  it  is  not  for  us  to  say.  The  choice, 
however,  is  between  rapidly  increasing  millions  of  human  beings 
educated  under  moral  and  religious  restraints,  and  attached  to  the 
soil  by  the  proceeds  of  their  own  labor,  or  hordes  of  unenlightened 
barbarians.  If  the  South  deliberately  keep  these  millions  in  this 
state  of  degradation,  they  must  prepare  themselves  for  the  natural 
consequences,  whatever  they  may  be. 

It  may  be  objected  that  if  the  slaves  are  allowed  so  to  improve 
as  to  become  freemen,  the  next  step  in  their  progress  is  that  they 
should  become  citizens.     We  admit  that  it  is  so.     The  feudal 


SLAVERY.  611 

serf  first  became  a  tenant,  then  a  proprietor  invested  with  polit- 
ical power.  This  is  the  natural  progress  of  society,  and  it  should 
be  allowed  thus  freely  to  expand  itself,  or  it  will  work  its  own  de- 
struction. If  a  tree  be  not  allowed  to  grow  erect  and  in  its  natural 
shape,  it  will  become  crooked,  knotted,  and  worthless,  but  grow 
it  must.  This  objection  would  not  be  considered  of  any  force,  if 
the  slaves  in  this  country  were  not  of  a  different  race  from  their 
masters.  Still  they  are  men  ;  their  color  does  not  place  them  be- 
yond the  operation  of  the  principles  of  the  gosj^el,  or  from  under 
the  protection  of  God.  We  cannot  too  frequently  remember, 
that  it  is  our  province  to  do  right,  it  is  God's  to  overrule  results.' 
Let,  then,  the  North  remember  that  they  are  bound  to  follow  the 
example  of  Christ  in  the  manner  of  treating  slavery,  and  the 
South,  that  they  are  bound  to  follow  the  precepts  of  Christ  in 
their  manner  of  treating  their  slaves.  If  both  parties  follow  the 
Saviour  of  men,  both  will  contribute  to  the  promotion  of  human 
excellence  and  happiness,  and  both  will  have  reason  to  rejoice  in 
the  result. 

'  If  the  fact  that  the  master  and  slave  belong  to  different  races,  precludes  the 
possibility  of  their  living  together  on  equal  terms,  the  inference  is,  not  that  the  one 
has  a  right  to  oppress  the  other,  but  that  they  should  separate.  Whether  this  should 
be  done  by  dividing  the  land  between  them  and  giving  rise  to  distinct  communities, 
or  by  the  removal  of  the  inferior  class  on  just  and  wLsc  conditions,  it  is  not  for  us  to 
say.  We  have  undertaken  only  to  express  an  opinion  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  Bible  directs  those,  who  look  to  it  for  guidance,  to  treat  this  difficult  subject,  and 
not  to  trace  out  a  plan  to  provide  for  ulterior  results.  It  is  for  this  reason  we  have 
said  nothing  of  African  colonization,  though  we  regard  it  as  one  of  the  noblest 
enterprizes  of  modern  benevolence. 


XV. 
EMANCIPATION/ 

Th'e  legislature  of  Kentucky  having  submitted  the  question 
to  the  people  whetlier  a  convention  should  be  called  to  revise 
the  constitution  of  the  State,  and  the  people  having  decided  that 
question  in  the  affirmative,  the  character  of  that  convention  be- 
came a  matter  of  absorbing  interest  to  the  inhabitants  of  that 
imjjortant  commonwealth.  The  point  about,  which  the  people 
were  most  divided,  and  to  which  public  attention  was  princi- 
pally directed,  was  negro  slavery.  The  question  in  debate  was, 
What  provision  shall  be  engrafted  in  the  new  constitution  in 
relation  to  that  subject  "^  Shall  the  constitution  make  provision 
for  the  permanent  existence  and  indefinite  increase  of  slavery  ? 
or  shall  it  prohibit  the  introduction  of  slaves  from  abroad,  and 
provide  for  the  gradual  emancipation  of  those  already  within 
the  borders  of  the  State,  or  at  least  leave  the  subject  open  for 
the  action  of  the  legislature  and  of  the  people,  untrammelled 
by  any  constitutional  provisions  ?  The  question  at  issue  was 
no  less  than  this,  Whether  Kentucky  was  to  remain  for  an  in- 
definite period  a  slaveholding  State,  or  whether  it  was  to  be 
allowed  to  take  its  place  among  the  free  commonwealths  of  this 
great  confederation.  This  is  a  momentous  question,  involving 
the  interests,  for  generations,  of  the  State  itself,  and  atfecting  in 
no  small  measure  the  whole  Union.  No  wonder,  therefore,  that 
the  public  mind  in  Kentucky  was  deeply  agitated  by  this  dis- 
cussion, and  no  wonder  that  the  eyes  of  the  whole  country 
watched  the  progress  of  the  struggle  with  the  liveliest  interest. 
For  months  previous  to  the  election  of  members  of  the  conven- 

'  The  Question  of  Negro  Slavery  and  the  New  Constitxition  of  KeniucJcy,  By  ROBEKT 
J.  Breckinridge,  D.D.    Princeton  Review,  October,  1849. 

33 


514  EMANCIPATION. 

tion  to  frame  a  new  constitution,  the  press  teemed  with  argu- 
ments and  appeals,  public  lecturers  and  orators  traveled  over  the 
State  to  address  the  people,  and  county  and  State  conventions 
were  held  to  embody  and  express  the  sentiments  of  the  contend- 
ing parties. 

In  Fayette  county,  including  the  city  of  Lexington,  and  em- 
bracing a  larger  number  of  extensive  slave-owners  than  almost 
any  other  county  of  the  State,  a  convention  was  held  on  the  14th 
of  April  last.  "  The  object  of  the  meeting  having  been  explain- 
ed in  a  few  eloquent  remarks  by  the  Hon.  Henry  Clay  and  Rev. 
R.  J.  Breckinridge,  on  motion  of  the  latter  gentleman,  the  follow-' 
ing  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted  :  1st,  That  this  meet- 
ing, composed  of  citizens  of  the  county  of  Fayette,  met  in  pursu- 
ance of  pubhc  notice,  to  consider  the  question  of  the  perpetuation 
of  slavery  in  this  commonwealth,  considering  that  hereditary 
slavery  as  it  exists  amongst  us, 

I.  Is  contrary  to  the  natural  rights  of  mankind  ; 

II.  Is  opposed  to  the  fimdamental  principles  of  free  govern- 
ment ; 

III.  Is  inconsistent  with  a  state  of  sound  morality  ; 

IV.  Is  hostile  to  the  prosperity  of  the  commonwealth  ; 

We  are  therefore  of  ojjinion,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  made 
perpetual,  and  that  the  convention  about  to  meet  to  amend  the 
constitution  of  this  State  afibrds  a  proper  occasion,  on  which 
steps  should  be  taken  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  slavery,  in 
such  a  way  as  shall  be  found  practicable  in  itself,  just  as  it  re- 
gards the  masters  of  slaves,  and  beneficial  to  the  slaves  them- 
selves. 

2d.  That  in  order  to  concert  with  those  who  agree  with  us, 
throughout  the  State,  a  plan  of  action  suitable  to  be  adopted  on 
this  occasion,  and  to  agree  with  them  upon  a  common  platform 
of  principles,  this  meeting  appoints  the  following  citizens,  and 
recommends  as  many  others  as  are  of  similar  sentiments  and  can 
conveniently  attend,  to  meet  at  Frankfort  on  the  25th  inst., 
delegates  from  other  parts  of  the  State,  similarly  appointed,  for 
the  purpose  herein  expressed."  Then  follow  the  names  of  thirty 
gentlemen  appointed  as  delegates  to  the  State  convention. 

When  the  convention  met  at  Frankfort,  the  Rev.  Dr.  R.  J. 
Breckinridge  submitted  a  document,  which  after  being  amended 
Vv-ith  his  concurrence,  was  adopted,  and  is  as  follows  :  viz. 


EMANCIPATION.  515 

"  This  convention,  composed  of  citizens  of  the  commonwealth  of  Kentucky,  and 
representing  the  oiDinions  and  wishes  of  a  large  number  of  our  fellow-citizens  through- 
out the  commonwealth,  met  in  the  capitol  on  the  25th  of  April,  1849,  to  consider  what 
course  it  becomes  those  who  are  opposed  to  the  increase  and  to  the  perpetuity  of 
slavery  in  this  State  to  pursue  in  the  approaching  canvass  for  members  of  the  conven- 
tion, called  to  amend  the  constitution,  adopts  the  propositions  which  follow,  aa  ex- 
pressing its  judgment  in  the  premises : 

"1.  BeUeving  that  involuntary  hereditary  slavery,  as  it  exists  by  law  in  this 
State,  is  injurious  to  the  prosperity  of  the  commonwealth,  inconsistent  with  th© 
fundamental  principles  of  free  government,  contraiy  to  the  natural  rights  of  man- 
kind, and  injurious  to  a  pure  state  of  morals,  we  are  of  opinion  that  it  ought 
not  to  be  increased,  and  that  it  ought  not  to  be  perpetuated  in  this  common- 
wealth. 

"  2.  That  any  scheme  of  emancipation  ought  to  be  prospective,  operating  exclusive- 
ly upon  negroes  born  after  the  adoption  of  the  scheme,  and  connected  with  coloniza- 
tion. 

"  3.  That  we  recommend  the  following  points  as  those  to  be  insisted  on  in  the  new 
constitution,  and  that  candidates  be  run  in  every  county  in  the  State,  favorable  to 
these  or  similar  constitutional  provisions.  1.  The  absolute  prohibition  of  the  im- 
portation of  any  more  slaves  into  Kentucky.  2.  The  complete  power  in  the  people 
of  Kentucky  to  enforce  and  perfect  in  or  under  the  new  constitution,  a  system  of 
gradual  prospective  emancipation  of  slaves. 

"  4.  This  convention  confines  its  recommendation  to  the  question  of  negro  slavery, 
and  makes  no  expression  of  opinion  on  any  other  topic. 

HENRY  CLAY,  of  Bmirbon,  President. 
Henry  Wingate, 


'i 


.V.  Presidents. 
W.  P.  Boon, 


Frank  BaUinger,)^^^^^^^^.^^^ 
Bland  Ballard,     ) 

0.  S.  Poston,  I  ^ggjstant  Secretaries. 
Samuel  Shy,   ) 

Such,  is  the  standard  raised  by  the  friends  of  emancipation  in 
Kentucky.  The  struggle  maintained  with  so  much  vigor  around 
it  has  for  the  present  ended.  The  members  for  the  convention 
to  revise  the  constitution  of  the  State  have  been  elected,  and  not 
more  than  one  or  two  emancipationists  if  any,  according  to  the 
public  papers,  have  been  elected.  It  may  be  difficult  for  those 
out  of  the  State  to  discern  all  the  causes  of  this  lamentable  de- 
feat. There  are,  however,  some  things  connected  with  the  sub- 
ject patent  to  every  observer.  In  the  first  place,  the  failure  of 
the  cause  of  emancipation  is  not  to  be  referred  to  any  want  of 
ability  on  the  part  of  its  advocates.  Those  advocates  comprise 
some  of  the  most  distinguished  men  not  only  of  Kentucky  but 
of  the  Union  ;  men  who  have  no  superiors  in  the  power  to  con- 
trol public  sentiment.     If  the  cause  of  freedom  could  have  been 


516  EMANCIPATION. 

carried,  it  must  have  been  carried  by  such  men.  If  any 
appeals  could  produce  conviction,  it  would  have  been  pro- 
duced by  the  addresses  mentioned  at  the  head  of  this  article. 
Self-interest,  ignorance,  and  prejudice  are  proof  against  any 
thing,  but  the  human  mind,  when  unbiassed  and  sufficiently 
enlightened  to  comprehend  their  import,  cannot  resist  such 
arguments  nor  harden  itself  against  such  sentiments  as  are  here 
presented.  It  must  be  conceded  then,  that  the  cause  of  eman- 
cipation in  Kentucky  has  failed  for  the  present,  in  spite  of  the 
exertions  of  men  of  the  highest  order  of  talents  of  which  the 
country  can  boast. 

Again,  some  seem  disposed  to  refer  this  failure  to  the  luke- 
warmness  of  the  churches  in  Kentucky.  We  are  not  prepared 
to  speak  on  this  subject  for  other  churches,  but  surely  this  re- 
proach cannot  fairly  be  brought  against  our  own  church.  The 
Presbyterians  have  taken  the  lead  in  this  struggle.  There  is  not 
a  prominent  man  in  the  Synod  of  Kentucky,  who  has  not  been 
conspicuous  for  his  zeal  and  efforts  in  behalf  of  emancipation. 
No  names  in  connection  with  this  subject,  are  more  prominent 
than  those  of  Drs.  K.  J.  Breckinridge,  John  0.  Young,  William 
L.  Breckinridge,  and  of  the  Eev.  Mr.  Eobinson  of  Frankfort. 
As  far  as  we  know,  there  is  not  a  single  Presbyterian  minister, 
whose  name  is  found  among  the  advocates  of  slavery.  We  ad- 
vert to  this  fact  with  the  more  satisfaction  because  the  steady 
opposition  of  our  General  Assembly  to  the  principles  of  the 
abolitionists,  has  subjected  our  church  to  the  reproach  or  mis- 
construction of  fanatical  parties  both  at  home  and  abroad.  It  is 
now  seen  that  the  principles  which  our  church  has  always  avowed 
on  this  subject,  are  as  much  opposed  to  the  doctrine  that  slavery 
is  a  good  institution,  which  ought  to  be  perpetuated,  as  to  the 
opposite  dogma,  that  slaveholding  is  in  itself  sinful,  and  a  bar  to 
Christian  communion.  With  perfect  consistency  our  church  has 
borne  its  testimony  against  the  doctrine  that  immediate  and 
universal  emancipation  was  the  imjicrative  duty  of  all  slave- 
holders ;  and  the  no  less  fanatical  opinion  that  one  class  of  men 
may  rightfully  keep  another  in  ignorance  and  degradation,  in 
order  to  keep  them  in  bondage.  It  has  steadily  inculcated  on 
the  one  hand,  that  the  holding  of  slaves  is  analogous  to  political 
despotism,  and  is  therefore  right  or  wrong  according  to  circum- 
stances ;  and,  on  the  other,  that  neither  the  slave  owner  nor  des- 


EMANCIPATION.  517 

pot  have  a  right  to  use  his  power  to  prevent  the  intellectual, 
moral,  and  social  imjDrovement  of  its  subjects,  in  order  that  his 
authority  may  be  undisturbed  and  perpetuated.  The  old  school 
Presbyterians  have  been  the  great  conservative  body,  in  reference 
to  this  subject  in  our  country.  They  have  stood  up  as  a  wall 
against  the  flood  of  abolitionism,  which  would  have  overwhelmed 
the  Church  and  riven  asunder  the  State.  But  at  the  same  time 
they  have  been  the  truest  friends  of  the  slaves  and  the  most  ef- 
fectual advocates  of  emancipation.  Their  failure  in  Kentucky  is 
in  a  great  measure  due  to  the  unhealthy  state  of  the  public  mind 
produced  by  the  abolition  controversy,  and  to  the  want  of  prepa- 
ration on  the  part  of  the  people.  We  sincerely  rejoice  that  Pres- 
byterians as  a  body,  were  found  on  the  right  side  in  this  great 
conflict,  and  that  the  failure  deplored,  is  not  to  be  imputed  to 
their  remissness  or  indifierence. 

Again,  the  impression  seems  very  general  that  the  emancipa- 
tionists have  been  defeated  by  the  slaveholders.  This  is  a  great 
mistake.  A  large  and  most  influential  class  of  the  slaveholders 
are  themselves  emancipationists.  The  struggle  was  not  between, 
the  slaveholding  and  the  non-slaveholding  part  of  the  com- 
munity. Had  such  been  the  case,  the  issue  would  have  been 
very  different.  It  is  probable,  indeed,  that  a  majority  of  the 
slaveholders  are  opposed  to  emancipation,  but  they  form  numer- 
ically too  small  a  portion  of  the  State  to  determine  its  action. 
Dr.  Breckinridge  estimates  the  slaveholders  in  Kentucky,  as 
only  one- eighth  of  the  population.  The  State  has  about  600,000 
white  inhabitants,  and  200,000  slaves.  There  are  140,000  per- 
sons entitled  to  vote,  and  of  these  not  more  than  20,000  are 
owners  of  slaves.  Here  then  we  have  120,000  non-slaveholding 
voters,  and  20,000  voters  owning  slaves,  and  yet  the  State  has 
gone  for  slavery  by  an  overwhelming  majority.  This  is  not  the 
work  of  the  slaveholders.  If  any  suppose  that  though  numer- 
ically a  small  portion  of  the. people,  by  their  superior  wealth  they 
influence  the  votes  of  their  poorer  neighbors,  they  evince  a  great 
ignorance  of  the  real  state  of  feeling  in  this  country.  Office- 
holders and  actual  subordinates  whose  bread  is  dependent  on  the 
favor  of  superiors,  may  be  under  their  political  control.  But  in 
the  great  majority  of  cases,  there  is  an  antagonism  between  the 
rich  and  the  poor.  The  whole  tendency  of  our  system  is  not  only 
to  throw  the  actual  power  into  the  hands  of  the  masses,  but  to 


518  EMANCIPATION. 

mate  them  jealous  of  any  appearance  of  control.  They  almost 
uniformly  assert  their  independence  by  going,  on  mere  questions 
of  politics,  in  opposition  to  the  wealthier  portion  of  the  com- 
munity. The  fact  therefore  that  the  non-slaveholders  in  Ken- 
tucky have  voted  against  emancipation,  is  not  to  he  attributed 
to  the  influence  of  the  slave  owners.  Their  conduct  in  this 
matter  is  to  be  attributed  to  various  causes.  There  is  a  natural 
opposition  between  the  free  whites  and  the  slaves,  both  as  a  race 
and  as  a  class.  Without  for  a  moment  admitting  that  there  is 
any  essential  difference  between  the  different  races  of  men,  it 
must  be  acknowledged  there  is  the  same  difference  between  races 
that  there  is  between  individuals  of  the  same  race.  We  do  not 
deny  the  name  of  brother  to  a  man  of  the  Caucasian  race  who 
may  happen  to  be  intellectually  and  physically  inferior  to  the 
majority  of  the  members  of  the  same  great  family  ;  nor  is  there 
any  doubt  as  to  the  essential  equality  of  those  particular  fam- 
ilies, who  from  one  generation  to  another  exhibit  marked  inferi- 
ority to  others  of  the  same  nation.  This  diversity  is  observable 
in  every  department  of  creation.  All  oaks  of  the  same  species 
are  not  alike,  much  less  are  the  several  species  of  the  same  stand- 
ard. In  like  manner  all  men  are  not  equally  endowed  with  the 
gifts  of  Grod,  neither  are  the  several  races  of  men  on  a  perfect 
equality.  There  is  a  marked  difference,  physical,  intellectual  and 
social,  between  the  Caucasian  and  the  Malay.  They  are  indeed 
of  one  blood.  They  are  the  children  of  the  same  parents.  They 
are  brethren  having  the  same  nature  in  all  its  essential  attri- 
butes, but  separation  and  the  protracted  operation  of  physical 
and  moral  causes,  have  given  each  its  peculiar  and  indelible  type. 
And  where  there  is  diversity  there  is  sure  to  be  superiority  and 
inferiority.  While  therefore  we  joyfully  admit  the  negro  race  to 
be  bone  of  our  bone  and  flesh  of  our  flesh,  to  be  brethren  of  the 
same  great  family  to  which  we  ourselves  belong,  it  would  be 
folly  to  deny  that  the  blacks  are  as  a  race  inferior  to  the  whites. 
This  is  a  fact  which  the  history  of  the  world  places  beyond  dis- 
pute. Whether  under  a  process  of  culture,  extending  through 
generations,  they  might  rise  to  an  equality  with  their  more 
favored  brethren,  is  a  question  which  we  need  not  discuss.  It  is 
probable  that  in  their  highest  developement  they  would  retain 
their  distinctive  characteristics,  and  be  our  superiors  in  some 
attributes  of  our  common  nature,  and  our  inferiors  in  others. 


EMANCIPATION.  519 

However  this  might  be,  it  is  indisputable  that  at  present,  in  all 
parts  of  the  world,  the  blacks  as  a  race  are  inferior  to  the  whites. 
This  is  a  fact  which  cannot  fail  to  have  its  effects  on  the  minds 
of  men.  It  leads  too  naturally  to  contempt  and  disregard  of  the 
rights  and  feelings  of  the  inferior  race.  The  more  ignorant  the 
whites  are,  the  more  violent  and  unreasonable  are  their  prejudices 
on  this  subject.  When  therefore  the  question  is  presented  to  a 
community  whether  an  inferior  race,  hitherto  held  as  slaves,  shall 
be  emancipated,  one  of  the  strongest  sources  of  opposition  to 
such  a  measure  is  sure  to  be  found  in  this  pride  of  race.  The 
whites,  and  especially  the  less  cultivated  portion  of  them,  revolt 
at  the  idea  that  the  distinction  between  themselves  and  those 
whom  they  have  always  looked  upon  as  their  inferiors,  should  be 
done  away.  They  regard  it  as  an  insult,  or  as  robbing  them  of  a 
privilege. 

To  this  is  to  be  added  the  prejudice  of  class.  The  negroes 
are  the  laboring  class.  That  portion  of  the  whites  who  sustain 
themselves  by  manual  emj^loyment,  have  a  great  jealousy  of  the 
interference  of  the  blacks.  They  will  not  associate  with  them, 
and  they  dread  the  idea  of  their  competing  with  them  as  me- 
chanics or  laborers.  While  slaves,  the  blacks  are  confined  to  the 
plantations  of  their  masters  ;  when  emancipated  they  go  where 
they  please,  and  enter  into  whatever  employment  they  find  open 
to  them.  To  this  association  and  competition  the  laboring 
whites  have  everywhere  the  strongest  re^jugnance.  We  are  not 
surprised,  therefore,  at  the  vote  of  the  non-slaveholders  in  Ken- 
tucky. It  would  be  the  same  to-morrow  in  New  York  or  Phila- 
delphia. The  laboring  whites  of  those  cities  would  doubtless  vote 
to  set  free  slaves  at  a  distance,  but  if  the  question  was  about  the 
emancipation  of  thousands  of  negroes  to  be  their  own  associates 
and  competitors  in  labor,  we  doubt  not  nine  out  of  ten  would 
vote  against  it.  And  this  was  the  light  in  which  the  question 
most  probably  presented  itself  to  the  majority  of  the  people  of 
Kentucky.  That  emancipation  was  to  be  gradual,  and  attended 
with  the  expatriation  of  the  blacks,  would  not  produce  much  im- 
pression on  their  minds.  They  took  the  matter  up  in  gross  as  a 
simple  question  of  freedom  or  slavery  for  the  blacks. 

There  is  another  consideration,  mistaken  indeed,  but  still 
effective,  which  is  apt  to  operate  on  the  minds  of  whites  against 
the  emancipation  of  the  blacks.     While  the  latter  are  slaves 


520  EMANCIPATION. 

their  masters  are  obliged  to  provide  for  them  when  disabled  by- 
age,  sickness,  or  dissolute  habits.  If  emancipated,  they  are 
thrown  on  the  community.  This  is  a  burden  which  the  non- 
slaveholdiug  whites  are  not  disposed  to  assume.  They  are  wont 
to  say.  Let  the  masters  take  care  of  their  own  blacks.  They  have 
had  the  good  of  them,  let  them  retain  the  burden  of  their  support. 
Perhaps  a  still  more  operative  feeling  is  that  of  antagonism  to 
the  free  States.  The  recent  discussions  on  abolitionism  have 
generated  a  state  of  morbid  excitement  in  the  public  mind.  The 
unreasonableness  of  a  part  of  the  people  in  the  northern  States, 
has  produced  a  corresponding  unreasonableness  in  a  portion  of 
the  South.  The  free  and  slave  States  have  been  placed  in  a 
very  undesirable  position  in  relation  to  each  other.  They  are 
assumed  to  have  opposing  interests,  if  not  mutually  hostile  in- 
tentions. The  consequence  is,  we  find  the  whole  population  of 
southern  States  going  together  on  questions  relating  solely  to 
the  supposed  interest  of  slaveholders.  The  great  majority  of 
the  inhabitants  of  those  States  own  no  slaves.  They  have  no  in- 
terest in  what  enhances  or  depresses  the  value  of  that  species  of 
property.  Yet  all  their  sympathies  are  with  the  slaveholders,  and 
against  their  non-slaveholding  brethren  at  the  North.  This  is 
not  to  be  referred  to  any  fondness  for  the  institution  of  slavery, 
nor  to  the  predominant  influence  of  slaveholders,  but  to  State 
pride  and  State  feeling.  It  is  easy  to  see  how  this  feeling  must 
operate.  Whatever  identifies  or  characterizes  a  community, 
determines  the  form  which  its  common  life  or  spirit  assumes. 
If  a  State  is  monarchical  or  aristocratical  in  its  constitution,  it 
will  be  so  in  its  spirit.  It  is  not  only  the  privileged  classes  who 
contend  for  its  peculiar  institutions,  but  the  majority  of  the 
people  are  pervaded  by  the  same  spirit.  It  requires  a  great 
amount  of  real  oppression  to  destroy  in  the  middle  and  lower 
classes  this  sympathy  with  the  characteristic  constitution  of 
their  country.  Nine  Englishmen  out  of  ten  will  be  found  to 
defend  hereditary  nobility  and  a  princely  hierarchy,  especially 
in  antagonism  with  republicanism.  In  like  manner  the  non- 
slaveholders  of  the  South,  though  almost  as  numerous  in  com- 
parison to  the  owners  of  slaves  as  the  commons  of  England  in 
comparison  to  the  aristocratical  classes,  stand  up  with  fervent 
zeal  in  behalf  of  their  peculiar  institution.  This  is  the  reason 
why   a  few  thousand    slaveholders  wield   the   authority  of   a 


EMANCIPATION.  521 

whole  State,  and  make  the  majority  of  the  people  tliink  they 
are  contending  for  their  own  rights  and  interests,  while  in  fact 
they  are  contending  for  the  exclusive  advantage  of  a  small 
minority. 

All  these  causes  to  which  we  have  adverted  as  tending  to  ac- 
count for  the  non-slaveholders  of  Kentucky  voting  to  perpetuate 
slavery,  owe  their  force,  it  must  be  admitted,  in  a  great  measure 
to  ignorance.  If  the  people  were  duly  enlightened,  they  would 
rise  above  their  influence.  This  is  obvious  for  two  reasons — first, 
that  the  most  enlightened  class  of  the  population  in  our  slave- 
holding  States,  unless  personally  interested  in  slavery,  are  op- 
posed to  its  being  perpetuated.  The  advocates  of  perpetual 
slavery  are  a  certain  portion  of  slaveowners,  and  the  uneducated 
portion  of  the  people.  The  great  body  of  enlightened  and  dis- 
interested men  even  in  slave  States,  groan  under  the  institution 
of  slavery  as  an  incubus,  and  long  for  deliverance.  Second,  it  is 
easy  to  see  that  the  reasons  referred  to  have  no  real  force,  and 
that  they  could  not  control  the  action  of  men  capable  of  estimat- 
ing the  real  merits  of  the  case.  It  is  a  mistake  founded  in  igno- 
rance that  emancipation  would  operate  injuriously  on  the  inter- 
ests of  the  laboring  portion  of  the  whites.  It  is  capable  of 
demonstration,  as  indeed  Dr.  Breckinridge  has  demonstrated, 
that  freeing  the  blacks,  according  to  the  plan  jDroposed  in  Ken- 
tucky, would  greatly  improve  the  condition  of  the  working  class 
among  the  whites.  To  see  this,  however,  requires  both  knowledge 
and  attention.  It  is  therefore  overlooked  or  disbelieved  by  that 
large  class  who  are  too  ignorant  to  calculate  remote  consequen- 
ces, and  are  governed  by  the  mere  appearance  of  things.  We 
fear  therefore  that  the  cause  of  emancipation  cannot  be  carried 
in  those  States  in  which  the  blacks  are  generally  diffused  among 
the  whites,  until  education  has  done  its  proper  work  among  the 
latter. 

In  order  to  the  proper  understanding  of  this  subject,  it  is  ne- 
cessary to  consider  the  distinctive  features  of  the  plan  proposed 
by  the  friends  of  emancipation  in  Kentucky.  It  differs  essen- 
tially from  that  of  the  abolitionists.  It  was,  in  the  first  place, 
to  be  progressive  and  not  immediate.  Against  the  plan  of  set- 
ting the  whole  slave  population  free  at  once,  the  objections  are 
so  great  that  it  has  never  been  adopted  by  a  slaveholding  com- 
munity.    People  at  a  distance,  who  do  not  see,  and  who  do  not 


522  EMANCIPATION. 

expect  to  suffer  from  the  evils  attending  such  a  measure,  under 
the  control  of  abstract  ideas,  may  clamor  for  immediate  emanci- 
pation, but  those  who  are  to  bear  the  burden  of  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  ignorant  and  generally  indolent  blacks,  content  to 
live  in  the  lowest  condition,  will  be  slow  to  believe  that  any 
principle  of  duty  calls  for  sucli  a  sacrifice.  It  is  not  a  matter 
of  right  as  it  concerns  the  slaves.  No  man  has  a  right  to  any 
privilege  which  he  is  incompetent  to  exercise — be  he  white  or 
black.  And  even  if  personally  competent,  his  exercise  or  enjoy- 
ment of  such  privilege  may  be  rightfully  restrained  by  a  regard 
to  the  best  interests  of  the  community.  Minors,  as  a  class,  are 
not  competent  to  exercise  the  elective  franchise  ;  they  have 
therefore  no  right  to  exercise  it.  Individual  minors  may  be  as 
competent  as  any  other  men,  and  yet  the  good  of  the  whole  justi- 
fies their  being  deprived  of  the  privilege.  On  the  same  princi- 
ple the  right  of  voting  is  denied  to  females,  though  personally 
competent  to  exercise  it  with  wisdom.  If  therefore  the  blacks 
as  a  class  are  incompetent  to  exercise,  with  benefit  to  themselves 
or  others,  the  privileges  of  personal  or  political  liberty,  then,  as 
long  as  that  incompetency  continues,  they  have  no  right  to  those 
privileges.  This  argument  of  course  supposes  the  incompetency 
to  be  real.  And  it  furnishes  no  justification  of  measures,  the  de- 
sign or  tendency  of  which  is  to  produce  and  perpetuate  such  in- 
competency. All  we  contend  for  is  that  there  is  no  foundation 
in  morals  for  the  reckless  application  of  "  the  doctrine  of  inalien- 
able rights"  to  the  case  of  slaves,  who  from  their  physical,  intel- 
lectual, or  moral  condition,  are  incompetent  to  exercise  the  rights 
of  freemen.  It  is,  therefore,  no  valid  objection  to  the  Kentucky 
plan  of  emancipation  that  it  conflicts  with  the  inalienable  right 
of  men  to  personal  freedom.  Whether  it  was  not  too  slow  in  its 
proposed  operation,  whether  it  did  not  unnecessarily  prolong  the 
period  of  bondage,  and  unfairly  exclude  all  the  existing  genera- 
tion of  blacks  from  its  benefits,  are  questions  of  detail  into  which 
we  do  not  feel  competent  to  enter.  The  advantages  of  any  plan 
must  depend  in  a  great  measure,  not  only  on  its  radical  principles, 
but  on  its  special  provisions.  And  the  question  which  the  friends 
of  freedom  may  have  to  decide,  is  not  what  plan  is  best,  but  what 
is  feasible.  It  would  certainly  be  unwise  to  refuse  everything, 
because  unable  to  carry  the  measure  they  might  consider  most 
desirable. 


EMANCIPATION.  523 

It  strikes  us  that  it  would  be  a  great  improvement  on  the 
plan  which  contemplates  the  liberation  only  of  those  slaves  yet 
to  be  born,  to  engraft  some  provision  for  the  emancipation  of  a 
portion  at  least  of  those  now  in  existence.  There  are  many 
obvious  advantages  connected  with  the  Spanish  system  which 
has  been  adverted  to  before  in  our  pages.  The  essential  fea- 
tures of  that  plan  are  these.  It  assumes,  what  we  believe  is 
universally  true,  that  the  slaves  are  allowed  and  have  the  op- 
portunity to  make  money  for  themselves.  This  is  done  by 
working  at  extra  hours,  by  raising  produce  for  the  market,  and 
by  executing  errands  and  commissions  of  various  kinds.  The 
money  thus  earned  they  are  in  all  slave  countries  permitted  to 
use  as  they  please.  In  the  next  place,  this  plan  provides  for 
the  appointment  of  a  public  officer  who,  on  application  of  the 
slave,  is  required  to  set  a  value  on  his  services,  which  the 
master  is  bound  to  accept.  As  soon  as  the  slave  has  accumu- 
lated one-sixth  of  the  sum  at  which  he  has  been  valued,  and 
paid  it  to  his  master,  he  has  Monday  free.  When  he  has 
gained  another  sixth,  he  has  Tuesday  free  ;  and  so  on  until  his 
whole  time  becomes  his  own.  In  this  way  he  is  trained  to 
habits  of  industry  and  self-control,  and  prepared  to  provide  for 
himself.  If  with  this  system  could  be  connected  some  provision 
for  liberating  the  wives  and  children  of  those  who  had  worked 
out  their  own  freedom,  the  plan  of  progressive  emancipation 
would  be  relieved  of  much  of  its  apparent  injustice.  It  is  un- 
doubtedly hard,  that  the  whole  existing  generation  of  slaves 
should  be  excluded  from  the  benefit  of  any  plan  of  emancipation 
that  may  be  adopted. 

Another  provision  of  this  plan  is  that  it  proposed  to  secure 
compensation  to  the  owners  of  slaves.  This  has  been  resisted 
on  two  grounds,  first  that  the  claim  to  the  service  of  the  slaves 
is  an  unrighteous  claim,  and  therefore  the  loss  of  those  services 
is  not  a  proper  ground  of  compensation ;  and  second,  that  the 
master  must  ultimately  even  in  a  pecuniary  point  of  view,  be 
a  gainer  by  emancipation.  As  to  the  former  of  these  grounds, 
it  is  enough  to  say  that  the  claim  of  the  master  is  not  necessarily 
unrighteous.  The  objection  has  its  foundation  in  the  assump- 
tion that  all  slaveholding  is  sinful.  If  that  principle  is  false, 
then  the  conclusion  drawn  from  it  is  vitiated.  Besides  it  is  to 
be  remembered  that  slavery  is  the  work  not  of  the  individual, 


524  EMANCIPATION. 

but  of  the  community.  It  could  not  exist  without  positive 
enactments.  The  community  is  responsible  for  its  existence. 
If  the  people,  in  their  capacity  as  a  commonwealth,  have  made 
laws  sanctioning  the  existence  of  slavery,  they  have  entered  into 
a  tacit  but  binding  contract  with  their  fellow-citizens  to  respect 
the  right  of  property  in  slaves.  If  they  come  to  think  that 
such  right  ought  to  be  abohshed,  or  that  the  interests  of  the 
commonwealth  demanded  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves,  it 
would  be  unjust  to  make  the  loss  faU  exclusively  on  the  owners. 
The  fault  or  error  was  that  of  the  community  ;  it  was  for  the 
common  good  the  laws  establishing  slavery  were  enacted,  and 
therefore  the  whole  community  should  share  in  the  loss  attend- 
ing the  repeal  of  those  laws.  If  by  laws  of  the  State  men  have 
been  authorized  and  induced  to  invest  their  capital  in  any 
species  of  property,  be  it  roads,  manufactories,  mines,  or  slaves, 
it  would  be  obviously  unjust  to  take  such  property  from  them 
without  a  compensation.  In  the  eye  of  the  law  it  makes  no 
difference  wherein  such  property  may  consist,  if  the  law  has 
sanctioned  it.  The  injustice  lies  in  visiting  upon  the  individual 
the  sin  of  the  community.  If  therefore  the  State  has  authorized 
the  holding  of  slaves,  the  State  must  bear  the  expense  of  recti- 
fying its  own  mistakes  when  it  comes  to  see  that  slavery  is  a 
public  burden. 

The  other  ground  of  opposing  all  compensation  to  the  owners 
of  slaves,  is  perfectly  valid,  if  it  really  exists.  If  the  master 
suffers  no  loss,  he  is  entitled  to  no  compensation.  If  emancipa- 
tion makes  him  richer,  he  has  no  claim  to  be  paid  for  it.  There 
may  be  circumstances,  in  isolated  communities,  where  slavery  is 
such  a  burden  on  the  master,  that  to  liberate  his  slaves  would 
be  equivalent  to  cancelling  a  mortgage  on  his  estate.  Such, 
however,  is  evidently  not  the  case  in  this  country.  Slavery  is 
everywhere,  in  some  form,  profitable  to  the  masters.  To  de- 
prive them  of  their  slaves  would  be  not  only  to  take  from  them 
their  capital,  but  to  render  unavailable  their  estates  in  land. 
Even  if  eventually  from  the  rise  of  real  estate,  and  the  general 
prosperity  induced  by  the  abolition  of  slavery,  the  slaveowner 
should  find  his  condition  improved,  the  immediate  effect  of 
emancipation  would  be  greatly  to  limit  his  resources.  The  re- 
sulting benefit  would  come  in  most  cases  too  late  to  be  a  real 
compensation  to  the  present  owners.     On  every  principle,  there- 


EMANCIPATION.  525 

fore,  we  think  the  friends  of  emancipation  acted  wisely  and 
justly  in  engrafting  the  principle  of  compensation  on  their  pro- 
posed plan. 

Another  feature  of  that  plan  was  the  expatriation  of  the  lib- 
erated blacks.  This  also  when  feasible  is  wise.  There  are 
natural  laws  which  forbid  the  union  of  distinct  races  in  the 
same  commonwealth.  Where  the  difference  is  slight,  as  between 
Saxons  and  Celts,  or  the  Teutonic  and  Romaic  families,  the 
different  elements  are  soon  fused.  But  even  here  we  find  that 
they  often  refuse  to  combine  and  remain  apart  for  ages,  the 
weaker  constantly  sinking,  and  the  stronger  constantly  advanc- 
ing. We  have  examples  of  this  in  the  French  paysans  of 
Canada,  and  Louisiana.  The  effect  of  the  amalgamation  of 
distinct  races  is  seen  in  the  physically,  intellectually  and  socially 
degraded  mongrel  inhabitants  of  Mexico  and  South  America. 
In  these  cases  the  chief  elements  were  the  Spanish  and  Indians, 
elements  less  widely  separated  than  the  Anglo-Saxon  and  the 
Negro.  The  amalgamation  of  these  races  must  inevitably  lead 
to  the  deterioration  of  both.  It  would  fill  the  country  with  a 
feeble  and  degraded  population,  which  must  ultimately  perish. 
For  it  is  a  well  ascertained  fact  that  the  mulatto  is  far  more  frail 
than  either  the  white  man  or  the  Negro.  We  read  in  the  disas- 
trous physical  effects  of  the  amalgamation  of  the  blacks  and 
whites,  a  clear  intimation  that  such  amalgamation  is  contrary  to 
the  will  of  God,  and  therefore  is  not  an  end  which  statesmen 
ought  in  any  way  to  facilitate. 

If  amalgamation  would  be  productive  of  the  most  lamentable 
evils  to  the  country,  it  is  no  less  undesirable  that  the  two  races 
should  live  together  as  distinct.  This  again  is  forbid  by  natural 
laws  which  we  can  neither  abrogate  nor  counteract.  It  is  a  law 
that  the  stronger  and  more  numerous  race  should  displace  the 
weaker.  The  weaker  may  be  absorbed  and  assimilated,  where 
the  difierence  is  slight,  but  if  the  difference  is  so  great  as  to  keep 
the  races  apart,  one  of  two  results  seems  invariably  to  foUow, 
either  the  weaker  race  dies  out,  or  it  is  reduced  to  a  state  of 
bondage,  and  is  then  kept  in  a  good  physical  condition  as  an 
instrument  of  labor,  at  the  expense  of  its  intellectual  and  social 
improvement.  The  former  of  these  results  we  see  exemplified 
in  the  disappearance  of  the  aborigines  of  this  country.  The 
same  process  is  rapidly  going  on  in  the  islands  of  the  Pacific 


526  EMANCIPATION. 

Ocean.  It  is  very  likely  that  the  blacks  will  prove  the  stronger 
race  in  the  West  Indian  Islands,  and  in  some  other  places  still 
nearer  the  equator.  In  some  of  those  islands  the  lowest  class  of 
the  population,  is  a  race  of  white  men.  Whether  white  or  black 
be  in  the  ascendancy,  the  law  is  that  the  weaker  sinks  and 
perishes  in  the  presence  of  the  stronger.  There  can  be  no  ques- 
tion that  in  this  country  the  blacks  are  the  weaker  race,  and 
therefore  if  emancipated  and  kept  distinct,  they  must  sink  and 
gradually  perish.  Such  has  been  the  experience  of  the  world. 
Individual  instances  of  excellence  and  prosperity  will  doubtless 
occur,  but  all  experience  shows  that  the  only  chance  for  any  race 
radically  distinct  from  another,  to  arrive  at  general  prosperity,  is 
that  it  must  be  kept  separate  and  placed  in  circumstances  favor- 
able to  its  development. 

Expatriation,  therefore,  when  practicable,  is  an  essential  fea- 
ture of  any  wise  plan  of  emancipation.  It  is  best  for  the  blacks 
themselves  by  removing  them  from  circumstances  hostile  to  their 
improvement,  and  placing  them  in  a  situation  where  an  unob- 
structed career  is  opened  before  them.  It  is  best  for  the  country, 
for  the  places  occupied  by  an  inferior  race,  incapable  of  general 
improvement  so  long  as  they  remain  among  whites,  will  soon  be 
filled  up  by  Europeans  and  Americans.  The  State,  freed  from 
its  black  population,  would  soon  find  itself  peopled  with  intelli- 
gent and  prosperous  farmers  and  mechanics  from  other  portions 
of  the  Union  and  from  the  old  world.  That  this  would  be  an 
advantage,  no  man  in  his  senses  can  doubt.  The  only  thing 
that  would  be  lost  by  such  a  change  would  be  the  race  of  mas- 
ters. There  would  no  longer  be  a  class  of  men  owners  of  their 
fellow-men,  and  exalted  by  such  ownership,  in  their  own  concep- 
tion into  a  superior  class  of  beings.  Few  will  be  disposed  to 
contend,  unless  slaveholders  themselves,  that  slavery  is  really  de- 
sirable from  its  influence  on  the  masters.  It  is  indeed  an  argu- 
ment which  privileged  classes  are  accustomed  to  use,  that  the  in- 
stitution of  nobility  is  necessary  to  the  highest  development  of 
our  nature.  The  robber  barons  of  the  middle  ages,  who  could 
neither  read  or  write,  looked  with  contempt,  not  only  on  their 
serfs,  but  on  the  merchants,  citizens,  and  learned  men  of  their 
generation,  and  regarded  all  measures  which  tended  to  break 
down  the  distinction  between  themselves  and  others,  as  fraught 
with  danger  to  the  true  nobility  of  man.     With  the  progress  of 


EMANCIPATION.  527 

civilization,  these  ideas  are  fast  disappearing  from  the  old  world, 
and  they  are  not  likely  to  find  a  permanent  abode  among  our 
planters.  Our  republican  institutions  are  not  favorable  to  the 
notion,  that  free  men,  though  farmers  or  mechanics,  are  inferior 
either  to  slaves  or  to  their  owners.  The  comparison  between  the 
slaveholding  and  the  non-slaveholding  portions  of  the  Union,  as 
to  everything  which  constitutes  national  prosperity,  must  at  once 
settle  the  question  whether  slavery  be  conducive  to  the  general 
good.  The  number  of  men  in  our  country  is  very  small,  who 
deUberately  maintain  that  a  State,  with  a  population  one-fourth 
whites  and  three-fourths  blacks,  is  in  a  more  desirable  situation 
than  are  those  whose  inhabitants  are  free  white  men.  The  latter 
is  immeasurably  stronger  for  all  the  purposes  of  good,  and  is  more 
capable  of  progress  in  agriculture,  commerce,  and  in  all  that  is 
desirable.  It  is,  however,  labor  lost  to  attempt  to  prove  that  a 
free  white  population  is  more  to  be  desired  than  either  slaves,  or 
liberated  blacks.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  rationally  disputed 
that  freeing  a  State  from  its  colored  people,  would  be  the  great- 
est of  all  temporal  blessings  that  could  be  conferred  upon  it.  On 
this  subject,  all  the  great  men  of  our  history  have  been  of  one 
opinion,  whether  living  at  the  North  or  at  the  South. 

The  advantages  of  exjiatriation  or  of  colonization,  however, 
are  confined  neither  to  the  blacks  nor  to  the  commonwealth  from 
which  they  are  removed.  Transported  to  the  rising  republic  of 
Liberia,  the  free  negroes  carry  with  them  the  seeds  of  religion, 
civilization,  and  of  liberty  to  an  entire  continent.  They  perform 
for  Africa  the  high  mission  which  our  forefathers  have  performed 
for  America  ;  and  make  Africa  for  the  black  race  what  the 
United  States  now  are  for  Europe  and  the  world.  The  designs 
of  Providence  are  already  so  far  unfolded  as  to  be  deciphered 
with  no  small  confidence,  God  seems  to  have  brought  the 
negroes  to  our  land  that,  after  sustaining  a  state  of  pupilage  in 
this  house  of  bondage,  they  may  return  to  their  land  of  promise, 
to  the  habitation  assigned  them  in  the  general  apportionment  of 
our  globe. 

To  this  feature  of  the  Kentucky  j^lan  of  emancipation  several 
serious  objections,  however,  have  been  made.  It  is  said  to  be  a 
violation  of  the  rights  of  the  blacks.  This  country,  it  is  main- 
tained, is  as  much  theirs  as  ours  ;  and  consequently  that  we  have 
no  more  right  to  send  them  away  than  they  have  to  send  us.  We 


528  EMANCIPATION. 

admit  the  force  of  this  ohjection,  under  existing  circumstances,  as 
far  as  it  concerns  those  blacks  who  are  already  free.  But  the 
case  is  very  diiferent  in  regard  to  those  who  are  now  in  bondage. 
To  render  their  present  condition  permanent  would  be  a  great 
injury  to  them  and  to  the  community.  To  free  them  is  to  con- 
fer upon  them  a  great  boon,  and  that  gift  may  rightfully  be  con- 
nected with  any  conditions  which  their  own  benefits  and  the 
public  good  may  demand.  It  is  a  great  fallacy  to  suppose  that 
the  abstract  rights  of  men  can  be  enforced  at  all  times  and  under 
all  circumstances.  The  right  to  choose  our  own  place  of  abode, 
as  the  right  of  property,  is  necessarily  subject  to  many  limita- 
tions. The  parent  has  the  right  to  take  with  him  his  minor 
children  when  he  leaves  the  crowded  provinces  of  Great  Britain 
or  Germany,  and  seeks  a  wider  and  more  hospitable  home  in 
America  or  Australia.  No  injury  is  inflicted  on  his  children,  and 
their  right  to  remain  in  their  native  country  is  subordinate  to 
the  right  of  the  parent.  The  slaves  in  this  country  are  in  a  state 
of  pupilage.  They  are  minors.  They  stand  in  that  relation  of 
dependence  and  inferiority  in  which  a  state  of  minority  essen- 
tially consists.  They  may,  therefore,  be  rightfully  treated  as 
minors  and  disposed  of  without  their  consent  in  any  way  consist- 
ent with  benevolence  and  justice.  If  a  great  good  to  them,  as 
well  as  to  those  they  leave  behind,  be  designed  in  their  removal, 
there  is  no  principle  of  right  violated  in  their  expatriation. 

The  expense  attending  any  extended  scheme  of  colonization  is 
another  objection  to  the  plan.  The  expense,  however,  of  any 
scheme  is  not  to  be  measured  by  its  actual  cost,  but  by  the  im- 
portance of  the  object  and  the  resources  at  command  for  carry- 
ing it  into  effect.  Measured  by  this  standard,  the  expense  of 
colonization  is  inconsiderable.  It  is  too  great  for  individuals, 
but  not  too  great  for  a  commonwealth.  Fifty  dollars  a  head  are 
said  to  be  sufficient  to  meet  the  cost,  not  only  of  transfen-ing  the 
emigrants  to  Africa,  but  also  of  sustaining  them  for  the  first  six 
months  after  their  arrival  in  their  new  home.  There  are  many 
ways  in  which  such  a  sum  could  be  procured.  It  is  less  than  the 
clear  profit  of  one  year's  labor  of  an  emancipated  slave.  ,  It  would 
be  more  generous  for  the  State  to  provide  for  the  expense  of  re- 
moval from  her  general  resources,  but  there  would  be  no  injustice 
in  requiring  the  slave  to  labor  for  his  own  outfit. 

A  much  more  serious  objection  arises  from  the  danger  of  over- 


EMANCIPATION.  529 

whelming  the  infant  colonies  in  Africa  with  an  unprepared  and 
therefore  reckless  population.  This  danger  is  great.  The  history 
of  the  world  teaches  us  that  civilization  does  not  spring  up  within 
rtny  community,  it  must  be  introduced  from  abroad.  The  orig- 
inal state  of  man  was  a  state  of  high  civilization,  in  the  truest 
sense  of  the  term,  and  savagism  is  an  apostacy  perfectly  hopeless, 
so  far  as  the  inherent  recuperative  powers  of  the  race  are  con- 
cerned. If,  therefore,  we  colonize  a  country  with  savages,  or  im- 
perfectly civilized  men,  they  will  continue  barbarians  or  soon 
lapse  into  a  savage  state.  We  have  in  St.  Domingo  an  illustra- 
tion of  this  general  truth.  The  negroes  of  that  island  were  not 
advanced  to  such  a  condition  of  moral  and  social  improvement, 
when  they  expelled  their  European  masters,  as  to  enable  them 
to  make  progress  in  civilization.  They  are,  in  most  parts  of  the 
island,  but  little  in  advance  of  their  condition  when  slaves.  And 
they  will  remain,  in  all  probability,  in  their  present  degraded 
state,  unless  the  influence  of  Christianity  is  brought  to  bear  upon 
them  from  without.  There  is,  therefore,  great  danger  that  un- 
educated colonists  introduced  into  Africa,  instead  of  raising  the 
natives  should  sink  into  barbarism  themselves.  To  guard  against 
this  danger  it  is  essential  that  the  foundations  of  a  colony  should 
consist  of  truly  enlightened  and  religious  men,  in  such  numbers 
and  in  such  a  state  of  advancement,  as  to  give  the  community 
its  character,  to  create  its  life,  so  that  all  new  accessions  should 
be  mastered  and  assimilated.  This  is  the  first  and  most  import- 
ant condition  for  successful  colonization,  more  important  even 
than  abundance  of  land  and  salubrity  of  climate.  It  should 
never  be  forgotten  that  the  character  of  nations  is  formed  in 
their  cradles.  It  depends  mainly  upon  the  germ  which  is  first 
planted.  The  character  of  these  United  States  is  distinctly 
traceable  to  the  character  of  the  first  colonists.  So  is  that  of 
Mexico  and  South  America,  and  it  will  take  ages  to  counteract 
the  strength  of  this  original  impulse.  We  can  never  be  suffi- 
ciently thankful  as  a  nation  that  the  original  settlers  of  this 
country  were  pious  and  enlightened  men  and  true  Protestants  ; 
and  that  they  were  numerous  enough  to  give  character  to  its  in- 
stitutions, and  create  a  public  spirit,  before  the  floods  of  ignor- 
ance and  Eomanism  were  opened  upon  us.  Except  in  Maryland, 
there  were  scarcely  any  other  than  Protestants  among  the  emi- 
grants to  this  country  for  nearly  a  ccntur}^  and  a  half     Had  the 

34: 


530  EMANCIPATION. 

annual  thousands  of  Ronaanists  which  for  the  last  twenty  or  thirty 
years  have  been  pouring  in  upon  us,  commenced  their  flow  in 
the  infancy  of  our  country,  we  should  have  been  overwhelmed, 
and  become  an  Ireland  or  Austria  on  a  larger  scale.  Next  then 
in  importance  to  the  original  character  of  a  colony,  is  the  charac- 
ter of  the  annual  accessions  to  their  numbers  from  abroad.  The 
new  colonists  should  not  be  so  numerous  as  to  oppress  the  re- 
sources, and  choke  the  avenues  of  life  in  these  recent  settle- 
ments, and  they  should  be  sufficiently  enlightened  to  fall  in  with 
the  sj)irit  of  the  community  of  which  they  become  members.  As 
the  colony  advances  in  strength  it  will  be  able  to  bear  more — to 
receive  and  dispose  of  larger  accessions,  and  even  to  master  un- 
congenial materials,  which  at  an  earlier  period  of  its  history 
would  master  it. 

It  is  true,  then,  that  if  the  colony  of  Liberia  was  to  be  flooded 
with  thousands  of  uneducated  negroes,  just  released  from  bond- 
age, they  would  be  in  imminent  danger  of  relapsing  into  barbar- 
ism, and  the  light  of  civilization  and  Christianity  just  kindled  on 
the  dark  coast  of  Africa  would  be  extinguished.  The  plan  in 
contemplation,  however,  does  not  propose  to  send  out  new  colo- 
nists either  in  such  numbers  or  of  such  a  character,  as  to  incur 
the  danger  of  which  we  have  spoken.  It  proposes  to  send  an- 
nually only  that  class  which  year  by  year  attains  a  certain  age, 
and  which  has  been  in  a  long  course  of  training  for  their  new 
responsibilities.  Instead  of  being  a  burden  to  the  colony,  such 
men  would  be  to  it  what  the  annual  accessions  from  Em'ope  were 
to  our  country  during  the  first  fifty  years  of  its  history.  The 
colony  would  thus  be  enlarged  and  strengthened  just  in  j^ropor- 
tion  as  its  strength  would  be  taxed.  In  a  few  years  it  would 
be  prepared  to  receive  increasing  numbers,  until  at  length  it 
would  feel  as  Httle  burdened  by  any  probable  amount  of  immi- 
gration, as  we  now  are  by  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  Euro- 
peans, who  annually  seek  among  as  an  asylum  from  want  or 
oppression.  There  is  no  reason  why  the  colonies  on  the  coast  of 
Africa  may  not  in  time  exhibit  the  same  cheering  spectacle  of 
rising  republics,  which  is  now  afforded  by  the  almost  annual 
birth  of  new  States  in  our  own  happy  country.  Africa  affords  a 
wide  field  of  fertile,  unoccupied  land,  a  climate  suited  to  the 
black  race  ;  and  the  native  neighboring  population  belonging  to 
the  same  great  division  of  the  liuman  family,  instead  of  melting 


EMANCIPATION.  531 

away  before  the  colonists,  as  the  Indians  have  here  disappeared 
before  the  whites,  will  gradually  be  assimilated  and  absorbed. 
This  is  one  of  the  brightest  prospects  now  ojjen  for  our  world.  It 
is  the  great  hope  of  Africa.  We  fully  agree  with  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge, when  he  says  that  the  plan  of  African  colonization  '*  is  one 
of  the  greatest,  most  fruitful,  and  most  sublime  events  of  any 
age.  The  great  necessity  of  the  world  at  this  moment,  is  a  free, 
civilized.  Christian,  and  powerful  State  within  the  tropics  ;  a 
necessity  felt  through  every  period  of  the  world's  history,  and 
now  about  to  be  realized.  The  western  coast  of  Africa,  is,  in 
every  point  of  view,  the  most  effective  for  such  a  State  to  occupy ; 
the  black  race,  of  which  there  cannot  be  less  than  150,000,000 
upon  earth,  is  pre-eminently  the  race  needing  such  a  develop- 
ment, and  prepared  for  it ;  and  the  United  States  are  exactly  in 
a  condition  to  found  such  a  commonwealth  with  this  race,  under 
circumstances  most  glorious  to  ourselves,  the  most  hopeful  to  the 
world,  and  the  most  beneficial  to  the  blacks."  P.  14.  This  glori- 
ous prospect  never  can  be  realized,  or  at  least  very  imperfectly, 
without  a  large  system  of  emancipation  m  this  country.  This  is 
the  source  whence  the  materials  for  this  Christian  commonwealth 
on  the  coast  of  Africa,  must  be  principally  derived.  It  would, 
therefore,  be  a  great  calamity  to  the  world,  if,  in  our  blindness, 
we  should  dam  up  this  current,  and  instead  of  allowing  it  to 
flow  out  as  a  healthful  stream,  force  it  to  become  a  stagnant 
pool,  converting  our  own  land,  in  some  of  its  fairest  portions, 
into  malarious  swamps.  Let  us,  however,  remember  it  is  not 
simply  men  that  Africa  needs,  but  enlightened  and  Christian 
men,  who  shall  carry  with  them  religion  and  knowledge,  the 
minister  and  the  schoolmaster. 

The  radical  principles  of  the  plan  of  emancipation,  then,  as 
proposed  in  Kentucky,  we  believe  meet  the  cordial  approbation 
of  the  enlightened  friends  of  the  negro  and  of  the  country ;  a 
plan  which  contemplated  a  gradual  emancipation,  consistent 
with  the  rights  of  the  slaveholder,  and  providing  for  the  coloni- 
zation of  the  liberated  blacks.  Though  this  plan,  notwithstand- 
ing its  merits,  and  the  ability  with  which  it  was  advocated,  has 
failed  for  the  present,  we  are  persuaded  it  must  ultimately 
succeed. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  demanded  by  the  eternal  principles  of 
right.    We  have  ever  maintained  that  slaveholding  is  not  in  itself 


532  EMANCIPATION, 

sinful,  that  the  right  to  personal  liberty  is  conditioned  by  the 
ability  to  exercise  beneficially  that  right.  We  have  ever  been 
opposed  therefore  to  the  abolitionists,  who  demand  immediate 
and  universal  emancipation,  and  who  would  exclude  slave- 
holders as  such  from  the  communion  of  the  church.  But  the 
right  to  hold  slaves  does  not  imply  the  right  to  treat  them  as 
brutes,  or  as  mere  chattels.  It  does  not  justify  laws  which  con- 
flict with  the  great  principles  of  benevolence  or  justice,  or  with 
any  of  the  enactments  of  the  word  of  Grod.  Men  on  all  sides 
are  apt  to  confound  things  essentially  distinct.  Because  the 
Scriptures  allow  slaveholding,  just  as  they  allow  aristocratical  or 
despotic  forms  of  government,  slaveholders  are  wont  to  appeal 
to  the  word  of  God  in  defence  of  slave  laws  which  violate  every 
scriptural  principle.  On  the  other  hand,  those  who  maintain 
that  slaveholding  is  not  sinful,  are  represented  as  sanctioning 
all  the  atrocities  by  which  the  system  is  any  where  or  at  any 
time  attended.  Both  of  these  proceedings  are  illogical  and  un- 
just. Slaveholding  may  be  justifiable,  and  yet  the  laws  made 
by  slaveholders  be  atrociously  unjust.  Slaveholding  may  be 
justified,  and  yet  such  slave  laws  be  consistently  condemned. 
No  Christian  has  ever  raised  his  voice  in  defence  of  the  actual 
slave  system  as  it  exists  in  many  parts  of  this  country.  Slavery 
in  Kentucky,  says  Dr.  Breckinridge,  "presents  this  aspect  :  1st. 
The  rights  of  property  are  absolutely  and  universally  abolished 
as  to  slaves.  2d.  The  rights  of  person  and  character  are  un- 
known, as  to  them,  except  as  the  interest  of  the  master  and  of 
the  public  peace  may  demand  their  recognition.  3d.  The  in- 
stitution of  marriage  between  slaves,  has  no  legal  recognition, 
nor  do  marital  rights  exist  as  to  them.  4th,  The  relation  of 
parent  and  child,  as  between  slaves,  is  not  recognized  by  law, 
except  in  determining  questions  of  property."  P,  13,  Is  it  not 
monstrous  to  suppose  that  the  Bible  sanctions  such  laws  as 
these  2  It  might  as  well  be  said  that  the  Bible  sanctions  all 
the  cruelty  and  injustice  ever  committed  by  civil  rulers,  be- 
cause it  sanctions  civil  government.  Every  good  man  must 
respond  to  the  indignant  eloquence  of  Dr.  Breckinridge,  when 
he  says,  in  reference  to  the  rights  just  enumerated,  that  every 
one  of  them  "  is  inherent  in  human  nature,  and  that  their  exist- 
ence and  their  protection  lie  at  the  foundation  of  human  society, 
which  could  not  exist  for  a  day,  under  any  form,  if  these  rights 


EMANCIPATION.  633 

were  universally  abolislied.  Moreover,  they  are  all  of  divine 
authority;  and  as  the  state  itself — that  is,  human  society — is 
ordained  of  God,  we  have  one  of  God's  institutions  abolishing 
as  to  an  immense  number  of  his  rational  creatures,  the  very 
foundations  on  which  he  has  erected  that  institution,  and  ren- 
dered possible  the  social  state  he  ordained  for  those  creatures. 
This  is  a  condition  of  things  for  whose  increase  there  can  be  no 
justification ;  and  whose  everlasting  continuance  can  be  de- 
fended only  on  grounds  which  subvert  the  order  of  nature,  the 
ordination  of  heaven,  and  the  foundations  of  the  social  state," 
It  is,  therefore,  no  fair  inference  from  the  doctrine  that  slave- 
holding  is  not  in  itself  sinful,  that  the  Bible  sanctions  the  actual 
system  of  slavery,  or  the  slave  laws  now  in  force  in  this  country. 
Much  less  can  it  be  fairly  inferred  from  the  abstract  lawfulness 
of  slavery,  that  laws  may  be  enacted  and  enforced  to  extend  and 
perpetuate  it.  It  is  one  thing  to  treat  savages  as  savages,  and 
another  to  endeavor  to  keep  them  in  a  state  of  barbarism.  It  is 
one  thing  to  deny  to  minors  the  rights  of  adults,  another  to  de- 
base them  that  they  may  never  exercise  those  rights.  It  is  one 
thing  to  keep  felons  in  prison,  and  another  to  force  men  to  be- 
come or  to  remain  felons  that  we  may  get  their  labor  for  noth- 
ing. Admitting,  therefore,  that  a  Christian  may,  with  a  good 
conscience  be  a  slaveholder,  he  cannot  be  a  Christian  and  delib- 
erately endeavor  to  keep  his  slaves  in  a  state  of  ignorance  and 
degradation  in  order  to  perpetuate  their  bondage.  Nothing  can 
be  more  distinct  than  the  right  to  hold  slaves,  in  certain  circum- 
stances, and  the  right  to  render  slavery  perpetual.  Perpetual 
slavery  implies  perpetual  ignorance  and  perpetual  degradation. 
This  the  mass  of  slaveholders  intuitively  perceive,  and  hence  in 
almost  all  slave  States  there  are  enactments,  the  design  of  which 
is  to  prevent  the  intellectual  and  social  improvement  of  the 
blacks.  It  is  everywhere  seen  and  admitted  that  gradual  im- 
provement must  lead  to  gradual  emancipation,  and  therefore 
the  former  is  strenuously  resisted  by  those  who  are  determined 
not  to  grant  the  latter.  But  as  it  is  one  of  the  clearest  and 
highest  duties  of  man  to  promote  the  improvement  of  his  fellow 
men,  as  this  duty  is  specially  binding  on  parents  and  masters, 
in  regard  to  their  children  and  servants,  and  as  the  right  to  in- 
tellectual culture  and  moral  and  religious  education  is  the  most 
precious  of  all  human  rights,  it  follows  that  one  of  the  greatest 


534  EMANCIPATION. 

sins  a  man  can  commit  against  his  fellows,  is  to  endeavor 
to  keep  them  ignorant  and  degraded  that  he  may  keep  them  in 
bondage. 

If  then  it  is  the  duty  of  a  community  in  which  slavery  exists 
to  provide  for  the  education  and  social  improvement  of  the 
slaves,  which  we  presume  no  Christian  will  deny,  then  it  is  the 
duty  of  such  community  to  adopt  some  system  for  emancipa- 
tion. It  is  certainly  not  less  clear,  that  improvement  must  lead 
to  liberation,  than  that  degradation  is  necessary  to  slavery.  No 
man  for  a  moment  believes  that  if  the  slaves  of  the  South  were 
as  well  educated  as  the  jieople  of  New  York  or  Massachusetts, 
slavery  could  continue  a  month.  Unless  therefore  men  are  pre- 
pared to  adopt  the  monstrous  doctrine  that  they  have  a  right  to 
keep  millions  of  their  fellow-creatures  in  ignorance  and  debase- 
ment, they  must  admit  that  emancipation  is  a  moral  duty. 
Conscience  is  the  only  principle  capable  of  competing  with  self- 
interest.  It  is  therefore  of  great  importance  that  slaveholders 
should  be  brought  to  see  what  God  demands  of  them  in  this 
matter  ;  that  they  cannot  without  violating  his  laws  and  forfeit- 
ing his  favor,  refuse  to  their  slaves  the  benefits  of  education 
and  the  enjoyment  of  those  rights  as  parents  and  husbands 
which  are  guaranteed  to  them  by  God  himself.  In  other  words, 
they  should  be  brought  to  see  that  slavery  cannot  be  perpetuated 
without  doing  violence  to  the  most  obvious  imperative  moral 
principles.  Still  more  important  is  it  that  non-slaveholders 
should  be  brought  to  see  that  they  are  committing  a  sin  against 
God,  as  well  as  inflicting  a  grievous  injury  on  their  fellow-men, 
in  contending  for  the  increase  or  indefinite  continuance  of  slavery. 
We  have  great  faith  in  the  self-evidencing  light  of  moral  truth, 
and  in  its  power  over  the  conscience,  we  therefore  believe  that  the 
advocates  of  emancipation,  will  yet  succeed,  if  they  can  but  keep 
up  before  the  minds  of  the  people,  the  great  principle  of  Duty. 
This  will  do  more  than  all  arguments  drawn  from  political  econ- 
omy, however  just  those  arguments  may  be,  or  however  power- 
fully they  may  be  presented. 

In  the  second  place,  emancipation  is  not  only  a  duty,  but  it  is 
unavoidable.  The  question  which  our  slaveholding  States  have 
to  decide  is  not,  whether  they  will  now  adopt  a  system  of 
emancipation,  or  remain  indefinitely  as  they  now  are  ;  but, 
whether  they  will  prepare  for   emancipation  while  the  evil  is 


EMANCIPATION.  535 

manageable,  or  have  it  forced  upon  them  when  every  condition 
of  the  problem  is  a  hundred  fold  more  complicated.  We  believe 
it  to  be  the  intimate  conviction  of  ninety-nine  hundredths  of  the 
intelligent  people  in  the  United  States  that  slavery  in  this  coun- 
try must  come  to  an  end.  This  conviction  is  as  common  at  the 
South  as  it  is  at  the  North.  The  great  effort  is  to  j)rocrastinate 
the  crisis  ;  to  throw  the  decision  and  the  trial  on  the  coming 
generation.  By  this  selfish  policy  the  evils  to  be  encountered  are 
fearfully  increased.  Fifty  years  ago,  with  a  slave  population  of 
seven  or  eight  hundred  thousand,  emancipation  and  colonization 
would  have  been  an  easy  work  compared  to  what  it  now  is,  with 
three  millions  of  slaves.  It  is  an  easy  work  now  compared  to 
what  it  will  be  fifty  years  hence.  "  Kentucky,"  says  Dr.  Breck- 
inridge, "with  six  hundred  thousand  white  persons,  and  two 
hundred  thousand  slaves,  and  the  whole  South  wanting  slave 
labor,  presents  a  problem  widely  different  from  Kentucky  with 
seven  hundred  thousand  white  persons,  and  five  hundred  thou- 
sand slaves,  and  the  whole  South  fully  supplied  with  slave  labor. 
The  one  is  a  question  easily  solved,  compared  with  the  other ; 
and  all  the  increased  difficulty  must  lie  at  the  door  of  the  non- 
slaveholder,  if  his  vote  produces  it."  P.  10.  One  reason,  then, 
why  slavery  cannot  be  perpetual  is  that  the  slaves  increase  in  a 
more  rapid  ratio  than  the  whites,  and  by  the  mere  force  of  num- 
bers must  occupy  the  land.  The  non-slavebolding  whites  will 
rapidly  withdraw  from  a  community  overstocked  with  slaves. 
This  is  a  process  which  has  already  been  going  on  for  years. 
Thousands  of  the  best  portion  of  the  population  of  Kentucky 
have  sought  homes  in  the  free  States  of  the  West.  Their 
places  have  been  occupied  by,  the  blacks.  Congregations 
once  large  and  flourishing  have,  from  this  cause,  dwindled 
down  to  insignificance.  The  natural  tendency  of  this  state  of 
things  is  to  render  the  disproportion  between  the  whites  and 
blacks  constantly  greater.  And  the  unavoidable  result  must 
be  that  the  negro  race  will  come  to  possess  the  land.  They 
will  be  too  numerous  to  be  jirofitable,  and  the  time  predicted 
by  John  Kandolph  (as  we  believe),  must  come,  when  the  mas- 
ters will  run  away  from  the  slaves.  This  period  may  be  more 
or  less  remote,  but  it  is  not  the  less  certain,  and  the  responsi- 
bility of  bringing  about  this  result  will  rest  on  those  who  vainly 


536  EM  ANCIP  ATIOIs'. 

attempt  to  fight  against  God,  in  fighting  against  the  laws  which 
he  has  ordained. 

But  there  is  another  reason  why  shivery  cannot  be  perpetuated. 
It  is  from  its  nature  a  transition  state.  It  supposes  a  low  form 
of  civilization,  and  must  disappear  as  society  advances  and  the 
slaves  rise  in  intelligence  and  power.  Under  eastern  despotism 
and  the  debasing  systems  of  Paganism,  the  people  may  be  kept 
in  such  degradation  as  to  be  perpetual  bondmen  ;  but  in  such  a 
country,  and  in  such  an  age  as  this,  and  under  the  all-penetrat- 
ing light  of  the  gospel,  this  is  impossible.  The  state  of  our  slave 
population  is  now  immeasurably  above  that  of  the  negroes  under 
the  dominion  of  the  Portuguese  in  Brazil.  Their  condition  m-ust 
continue  to  improve  under  the  controlling  influence  of  a  Chris- 
tian public  sentiment.  It  will  be  out  of  the  power  of  slavehold- 
ers to  make  laws  to  keeji  out  the  light  and  warmth  of  Christian 
truth  ;  and  they  themselves  will  not  have  the  heart  to  persevere 
in  the  attempt.  In  this  way,  if  in  no  other,  slavery  must  cease. 
The  slaves  will  cease  to  be  minors  ;  they  will  outgrow  their  state 
of  pupillage,  and  their  bonds  will  either  drop  from  their  limbs  or 
be  shaken  ofi*.  We  consider  nothing  more  certain,  under  those 
laws  which  God  has  established,  than  that  all  attempts  to  per- 
petuate slavery  in  these  United  States  must  fail.  The  attempt, 
however,  to  render  it  permanent  will,  for  this  very  reason,  be  all 
the  more  disastrous.  It  is  an  attempt  to  counteract  the  laws  of 
nature  and  ordinances  of  God,  and  must  of  necessity  overwhelm 
in  hopeless  ruin  those  who  engage  in  so  insane  an  enterprise. 
The  only  safe  course,  as  it  is  the  only  one  consistent  with  Chris- 
tian duty,  is  to  improve  the  slaves,  and  to  emancipate  and  re- 
move them  as  rapidly  as  they  are  prepared  for  freedom.  And  as 
this  can  now  be  done  without  loss  to  the  masters,  or  with  full 
compensation  for  such  loss,  and  with  the  prospect  of  removing 
the  liberated  blacks  from  the  country,  it  is  infatuation  to  resist 
the  proposed  plan.  Hereafter  emancipation  must  be  granted, 
without  compensation,  and  without  the  possibility  of  removal. 

There  is  another  consideration  involved  in  what  we  have  said, 
but  which  deserves  separate  mention.  If  slavery  is  founded  on 
ignorance  and  degradation,  if  it  is  contrary  to  the  will  of  God 
that  such  ignorance  and  degradation  should  be  rendered  perma- 
nent, then  every  attempt  to  perpetuate  such  a  state  is  a  direct 
violation  of  his  will.     It  is  a  national  sin,  as  it  must  be  commit- 


EMANCIPATION.  537 

ted  by  the  people  in  their  capacity  as  a  commonwealth,  and, 
therefore,  will  inevitably  lead  to  national  calamity.  The  history 
of  the  world  is  one  continued  proof  that  God  visits  the  iniquities 
of  the  fathers  on  the  children  of  the  third  and  fourth  generation 
of  those  who  hate  him.  Nations  never  sin  with  impunity.  If 
they  are  guilty  of  habitual  injustice  towards  their  own  dependent 
members,  or  against  others,  they  are  but  laying  up  for  them- 
selves wrath  against  the  day  of  wrath.  So  sure,  therefore,  as  a 
righteous  Grod  rules  among  the  nations,  so  certainly  must  the 
attempt  to  perpetuate  slavery  by  keeping  the  slaves  ignorant 
and  degraded,  work  out  a  fearful  retribution  for  the  descendants 
of  those  by  whom  such  attempt  is  made. 

When  to  the  considerations  that  emancipation  is  a  duty,  and 
that   it   is   ultimately  unavoidable,  is   added   the   obvious   and 
weighty  benefits  which  it  must  confer  on  all  concerned,  it  is  won- 
derful that  a  plan  so  fraught  with  blessings  should  not  command 
universal  favor.     It  will  raise  the  black  race  from  the  degrada- 
tion  of  uneducated   bondmen,  into   enlightened   freemen,   the 
founders  of  a  new  empire   for  a  continent.     It  will  substitute 
white  free  men  for  negro  slaves,  as  inhabitants  of  the  fairest 
portions  of  our  own  country.     It  will  give  thousands  of  hands  to 
guard  our  hearths,  in  place  of  thousands  to  be  guarded  against. 
It  will  give  us  the  materials  for  flourishing  schools  and  churches, 
instead  of  moral  desolation.     It  will  multiply  many  fold  the  re- 
sources of  the  State,  and  secure  its  progress  in  all  the  arts  and 
comforts  of  life.     It  will  benefit  all  classes  of  the  people,  the 
slaveowner  as  well  as  others.     They  must  reap  the  advantage  of 
increasing  prosperity.     If  emancipation  be  attended,  as  in  the 
West  Indies,  by  circumstances  which  depress  all  the  resources  of 
the  country,  then  the  slaveowners  become   the  chief  sufferers. 
But  if  for  the  slave  population  removed  from  the  land,  is  substi- 
tuted an  enterprising  race  of  free  white  men,  then  the  slaveown- 
ers are  the  greatest  gainers.     No  class  of  men  in  England  has 
gained  so  much  by  the  abolition  of  vassalage,  and  by  the  pros- 
perity of  the  country,  as  the  nobility.     Instead  of  serfs  and 
hovels  their  estates  are  covered  with  free  men  and  cities.     And 
if  to-morrow  the  blacks  of  Kentucky  coull  be  transmuted  into 
such  men  as  make  cities  and  villages  spring  up  like  cornfields, 
through  the  State  of  New  York,  the  former  slaveowners  would 
find  themselves  princes.     They  are  striving  against  their  own 


538  EMANCIPATION. 

best  interests,  as  well  as  the  interests  of  the  whole  common- 
wealth in  clinging  to  an  institution  which  must  die,  and  which 
must  poison  the  air  where  its  disjected  members  lie. 

We  hope  the  friends  of  emancipation  in  Kentucky  will  not 
give  up  all  for  lost.  Let  such  addresses  as  that  of  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge be  spread  over  the  State,  and  kept  permanently  in  contact 
with  the  minds  of  the  peojile.  Though  this  is  the  only  argument 
in  favor  of  emancipation  we  have  had  the  good  fortune  to  meet 
with,  we  are  sure,  from  the  character  of  Dr.  Breckinridge's  asso- 
ciates, that  there  are  many  other  addresses  of  a  like  kind,  which 
ought  to  be  preserved,  and  kept  constantly  in  circulation.  With 
the  blessing  of  God  on  what  is  right  and  true,  the  people  must 
ultimately  be  convinced  that  emancipation  is  a  duty  and  a  ne- 
cessity. 


XVI. 

THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 
AND  THAT  OF  THE  FEELINGS.^ 

The  normal  authority  of  the  Scripture  is  one  of  the  subjects 
about  which,  at  the  present  time,  the  mind  of  the  church  is  most 
seriously  agitated.  The  old  doctrine  of  the  plenary  inspiration, 
and  consequent  infallibility  of  the  written  word,  is  still  held  by 
the  great  body  of  believers.  It  is  assailed,  however,  from  various 
quarters  and  in  different  ways.  Some  of  these  assaults  are  from 
avowed  enemies  ;  some,  from  pretended  friends  ;  and  others,  from 
those  who  are  sincere  in  thinking  they  are  doing  God  service  in 
making  his  word  more  pliant,  so  that  it  may  accommodate  itself 
the  more  readily,  not  to  science,  but  to  the  theories  of  scientific 
men  ;  not  to  philosophy,  but  to  the  speculations  of  philosophers. 
The  form  of  the»e  attacks  is  constantly  varying.  The  age  of 
naked  rationalism  is  almost  over.  That  system  is  dying  of  a 
want  of  heart.  Its  dissolution  is  being  hastened  by  the  contempt 
even  of  the  world.  It  is  no  longer  the  mode  to  make  "  common 
sense"  the  standard  of  all  truth.  Since  the  discovery  of  the 
Anschauungs  Vermogen  men  see  things  in  their  essence.  The 
intuitional  consciousness  has  superseded  the  discursive  under- 
standing ;  and  Rationalists  have  given  place  to  Transcendental- 
ists.  In  the  hands  of  many  of  the  latter,  the  Scriptures  share  the 
same  fate  which  has  overtaken  the  outward  world.  As  the  ma- 
terial is  but  the  manifestation  of  the  spiritual — so  the  tacts  and 
doctrines  of  the  Bible  are  the  mere  forms  of  the  spirit  of  Chris- 

'  The  Theology  of  the  Intellect  and  that  of  the  Feelings.  A  Discourse  before  the  Con- 
vention  of  the  Congregational  Ministers  of  New  England^  in  Brattle-street  Meeting  House, 
Boston,  May  30th,  1850.  By  Edwards  A.  Park,  Professor  in  Andover  Theological 
Seminary.    Phinceton  Review,  October,  1850. 


540      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

tianity  ;  and  if  you  have  the  spirit,  it  matters  not  what  form  it 
takes.  These  gifted  ones,  therefore,  can  aiford  to  be  very  hberal. 
They  see  in  Christianity,  as  in  all  things  else,  a  manifestation  of 
what  is  real.  They  pity,  but  can  bear  with,  those  who  lay  stress 
on  the  histprical  facts  and  doctrinal  assertions  of  the  Scriptures. 
They  look  on  them  as  occupying  a  lower  position,  and  as  belong- 
ing to  a  receding  period.  Still  men  can  have  the  substance  in 
that  form  as  well  as  in  another.  The  misfortune  is  that  they 
persist  in  considering  the  form  to  be  the  substance,  or  at  least 
inseparable  from  it.  They  do  not  see  that  as  the  principle  of 
vegetable  life  is  as  vigorous  now,  as  when  it  was  expressed  in 
forms  extant  only  as  fossils,  and  would  continue  unimpaired 
though  the  whole  existing  flora  should  perish  ;  so  Christianity 
would  flourish  uninjured,  though  the  New  Testament  should 
turn  out  to  be  a  fable. 

This  theory  has  more  forms  than  one  ;  and  has  many  advo- 
cates who  are  not  prepared  to  take  it  in  its  full  results.  Neither 
is  it  confined  to  Germany.  With  most  of  the  productions  of  that 
teeming  soil,  it  is  in  the  process  of  transplanting.  Shoots  have 
been  set  out,  and  assiduously  watered  in  England  and  America, 
which  bid  fair  to  live  and  bear  fruit.  The  doctrine  that  "  Chris- 
tianity consists  not  in  propositions — it  is  life  in  the  soul,"'  and  a 
life  independent  of  the  propositions,  of  necessity  supersedes  the 
authority,  if  not  the  necessity  of  the  Scriptures.  This  doctrine, 
variously  modified,  is  one  of  the  forms  in  which  the  word  of  God 
is  made  of  none  eifect. 

Another  theory,  intimately  related  to  one  just  referred  to,  is 
the  doctrine  that  inspiration  differs  in  degree,  but  not  in  nature, 
from  the  spiritual  illumination  which  ordinary  men  enjoy.  Just 
in  proportion  as  the  religious  consciousness  is  elevated,  the  intui- 
tion of  divine  things  is  enlarged  and  rendered  more  distinct.  If 
sanctification  were  perfect,  religious  knowledge  would  be  perfect. 
"  Let  there  be  a  due  purification  of  the  moral  nature,"  says 
Morell,  "  a  perfect  harmony  of  the  spiritual  being  with  the  mind 
of  God — a  removal  of  all  inward  disturbances  from  the  breast, 
and  what  is  to  prevent  or  disturb  this  immediate  intuition  of 
divine  things  ?"  P.  174.'   The  inspiration  of  the  sacred  writings, 

*  Morell's  Philosophy  of  ReHgion,  p.  172. 

2  MoEELli  is  a  very  superior  man.  He  stands  among  the  first  rank  of  reproducing, 
as  distinguished  from  producing  minds.     His  book  is  a  simple  reproduction  of  the 


AND    THAT     OF     THE     FEELINGS,  541 

resembles,  he  tells  us,  that  of  men  of  genius.  The  natural  phi- 
losopher is  so  in  harmony  with  nature  that  he  has  a  sort  of  intu- 
ition of  her  laws  ;  the  poet  from  sympathy  with  his  fellow-men, 
can  unfold  the  workings  of  the  human  breast ;  and  so  good  men, 
from  congeniality  with  God,  can  see  the  things  of  God.  Of 
course  the  trustworthiness  of  the  sacred  writers  differs  with  their 
goodness.  Those  of  the  Old  Testament,  standing  on  a  much 
lower  level  of  moral  culture  than  those  of  the  New,  are  propor- 
tionately below  them  in  authority.  The  weight  due  to  what 
these  writers  say,  depends  not  only  on  their  relative  goodness, 
but  also  on  the  subjects  of  which  they  treat.  Beyond  the  sphere 
of  moral  and  religious  truths,  they  can  have  no  peculiar  author- 
ity, because  to  that  sphere  the  intuitions  of  the  religious  con- 
sciousness are  of  necessity  confined.  The  greater  part  of  the 
Bible,  therefore,  is  not  inspired,  even  in  this  low  sense  of  the 
term  ;  and  as  to  the  rest,  it  is  not  the  word  of  God.  It  is  merely 
the  word  of  good  men.  It  has  at  best  but  a  human,  and  not  a 
divine  authority  ;  except,  indeed,  for  those  who  repudiate  the 
distinction  between  human  and  divine,  which  is  the  case  with 
the  real  authors  of  this  system.  We  are,  however,  speaking  of 
this  theory  as  it  is  presented  by  professed  theists.  It  has  ap- 
peared under  three  forms,  according  to  the  three  different  views 
entertained  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  whom  this  inspiration  is  re- 
ferred. If  by  that  term  is  understood  the  universal  efficiency  of 
God,  then  all  men  are  inspired,  who,  under  the  influence  of  the 
general  providence  of  God,  have  their  religious  consciousness 
specially  elevated.  This  is  the  kind  of  revelation  and  inspiration 
which  many  claim  for  heathen  sages,  and  concede  to  Christian 
apostles.  But  if  the  Holy  Spirit  be  regarded  as  "  the  forming, 
animating,  and  governing  principle  of  the  Christian  church," 
then  inspiration  is  confined  to  those  within  the  church,  and  be- 
longs to  all  its  members  in  proportion  to  their  susceptibility  to 
this  pervading  principle.  Again,  if  the  Holy  Spirit  be  recog- 
nized as  a  divine  person,  dispensing  his  gifts  to  each  one  severally 

doctrines  of  the  Germau  school  to  which  he  is  addicted ;  but  it  is  remarkably  clear, 
well  digested,  and  consistent.  He  understands  himself  and  his  masters.  This  is  a 
great  deal.  Still  ho  is  but  an  intelligent  pupil ,  and  those  who  wish  to  understand 
the  theory  which  he  presents,  would  do  well  to  study  it  in  the  writings  of  its  authors. 
They  will  find  it  there  in  its  nakedness,  freed  from  those  delicate  concealments  which 
a  traditionary  faith  has  imposed  on  Mr.  Morell. 


542      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

as  he  luills,  inspiration  may  be  a  still  more  restricted  gift,  but 
its  essential  nature  remains  the  same.  It  is  that  purifying  in- 
fluence of  the  Spirit  upon  the  mind  which  enables  it  to  see  the 
things  of  God.  It  is  simply  spiritual  illumination  granted  to  all 
believers,  to  each  according  to  his  measure  ;  to  the  apostles,  it 
may  be  conceded  in  greater  fullness  than  to  any  others,  but  to 
none  perfectly.  The  Bible  is  not  the  word  of  God,  though  it 
contains  the  aspirations,  the  convictions,  the  out-goings  of  heart 
of  men  worthy  of  all  reverence  for  their  piety.  The  distinction 
between  the  Scriptures  and  uncanonical  writings  of  pious  men,  is 
simply  as  to  the  degree  of  their  piety,  or  their  relative  advan- 
tages of  knowledge.  It  is  not  our  business  to  discuss  this  theory 
of  inspiration  ;  we  speak  of  it  as  one  of  the  modes  in  which  the 
authority  of  the  Bible  is,  in  the  present  age,  assailed. 

Under  the  same  general  category  must  be  classed  the  beautiful 
solo  of  Dr.  Bushnell.  He  endeavored  to  seduce  us  from  cleaving 
to  the  letter  of  the  Scriptures,  by  telling  us  the  Bible  was  but  a 
picture  or  a  poem  ;  that  we  need  as  little  to  know  its  dogmas,  as 
the  pigments  of  an  artist  ;  the  eesthetic  impression  was  the  end 
designed,  which  was  to  be  reached,  not  through  the  logical  un- 
derstanding, but  the  imagination.  It  was  not  a  creed  men  needed, 
or  about  which  they  should  contend.  All  creeds  are  ultimately 
alike.  It  is  of  no  use  however  to  score  the  notes  of  a  dying  swan, 
as  the  strain  canliot  be  repeated,  except  by  ariother  swan  in  ar- 
ticulo  mortis.  Dr.  Bushnell  has  had  his  predecessors.  A  friend 
of  ours,  when  in  Germany,  had  Schleiermacher's  Reden  iiber  die 
Religion  put  into  his  hands.  When  asked  what  he  thought  of 
those  celebrated  discourses,  he  modestly  confessed  he  could  not 
understand  them.  "  Understand  them  !"  said  his  friend,  "  that 
is  not  the  point.      Did  you  not  feel  them  ?" 

We  are  sincerely  sorry  to  be  obliged  to  speak  of  Professor 
Park's  sermon,  which  was  listened  to  with  unbounded  admira- 
tion, and  the  fame  of  which  has  gone  through  the  land,'  as  inimical 
to  the  proper  authority  of  the  word  of  God.  But  if  it  is  right  in 
him  to  publish  such  an  attack  on  doctrines  long  held  sacred,  it 
must  be  right  in  those  who  believe  those  doctrines,  to  raise 
their  protest  against  it.  We  are  far  from  supposing  that  the 
author  regards  his  theory  as  subversive  of  the  authority  of  the 

'  While  writing,  we  have  received  a  copy  of  the  "  third  thousand"  of  this  dis- 
course. 


AND    THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS.  5:1'' 

Bible.  He  has  obviously  adopted  it  as  a  convenient  way  of  get- 
ting rid  of  certain  doctrines,  which  stand  out  far  too  prominently 
in  Scripture  and  are  too  deeply  impressed  on  the  hearts  of  God's 
people,  to  allow  of  their  being  denied.  It  must  be  conceded  that 
they  are  in  the  Bible.  To  reconcile  this  concession  with  their  re- 
jection, he  projioses  the  distinction  between  the  theology  of  feel- 
ing and  that  of  the  intellect.  There  are  two  modes  of  apprehend- 
ing and  presenting  truth.  The  one  by  the  logical  consciousness 
(to  use  the  convenient  nomenclature  of  the  day)  that  it  may  be 
understood  ;  the  other  by  the  intuitional  consciousness,  that  it 
may  be  felt.  These  modes  do  not  necessarily  agree  :  they  may 
often  conflict,  so  that  what  is  true  in  the  one,  may  be  false  in  the 
other.  If  an  assertion  of  Scripture  commends  itself  to  our  reason, 
we  refer  it  to  the  theology  of  the  intellect,  and  admit  its  truth. 
If  it  clashes  with  any  of  our  preconceived  opinions,  we  can  refer 
it  to  the  theology  of  the  feelings,  and  deny  its  truth  for  the  in- 
tellect. In  this  way,  it  is  obvious  any  unpalatable  doctrine  may 
be  got  rid  of,  but  no  less  obviously  at  the  expense  of  the  author- 
ity of  the  word  of  God.  There  is  another  advantage  of  this 
theory  of  which  the  Professor  probably  did  not  think.  It  enables 
a  man  to  profess  his  faith  in  doctrines  which  he  does  not  believe. 
Dr.  Bushnell  could  sign  any  creed  by  help  of  that  chemistry  of 
thought  which  makes  all  creeds  alike.  Professor  Park's  theory, 
will  allow  a  man  to  assert  contradictory  propositions.  If  asked. 
Do  you  believe  that  Christ  satisfied  the  justice  of  God  ?  he  can 
say,  yes,  for  it  is  true  to  his  feelings  ;  and  he  can  say,  no,  because 
it  is  false  to  his  intellect.  A  judicious  use  of  this  method  will 
carry  a  man  a  great  way.  This  whole  discourse,  we  think,  will 
strike  the  reader,  as  a  set  of  variations  on  the  old  theme,  "What 
is  true  in  religion  is  false  in  j)hilosophy  :"  and  the  "  tearful  Ger- 
man," of  whom  our  author  speaks,  who  said  :  "  In  my  heart  I 
am  Christian,  while  in  my  head  I  am  a  philosopher,"  might  find 
great  comfort  in  the  doctrine  here  propounded.  He  might  learn 
that  his  condition  instead  of  a  morbid,  was  in  fact  the  normal 
one  ;  as  what  is  true  to  the  feelings  is  often  false  to  the  intellect. 

We  propose  to  give  a  brief  analysis  of  this  sermon,  and  then,  in 
as  few  words  as  possible,  endeavor  to  estimate  its  character. 

The  sermon  is  founded  upon  Gen.  vi.  6,  and  1  Sam.  xv.  29. 
In  the  former  passage  it  is  said,  "  It  repented  the  Lord  ;"  and  in 
the  latter,  God — "is  not  a  man  that  he  should  repent."     Here 


544  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    INTELLECT 

are  two  assertions  in  direct  conflict,  God  repented  and  God  can- 
not repent.  Both  must  be  true.  But  how  are  they  to  he  recon- 
ciled ?  The  sermon  proposes  to  give  the  answer,  and  to  show 
how  the  same  proposition  may  be  both  affirmed  and  denied.  Our 
author  begins  by  telhng  us  of  a  father  who,  in  teaching  astron- 
omy to  his  chikl,  produced  a  false  impression  by  presenting  the 
truth ;  while  the  mother  produced  a  correct  impression  by  teaching 
error.  This,  if  it  means  anything  to  the  purpose,  is  rather  omin- 
ous as  a  commencement.  A  right  impression  is  the  end  to  be 
aimed  at  in  all  instruction  ;  and,  if  the  principle  implied  in  this 
illustration  be  correct,  we  must  discard  the  fundamental  maxim 
in  religion,  "  Truth  is  in  order  to  holiness,"  and  assume  that  error 
is  better  adapted  to  that  purpose  ;  a  principle  on  which  Koman- 
ists  have  for  ages  acted  in  their  crass  misrepresentations  of  divine 
things  in  order  to  impress  the  minds  of  the  people. 

But  we  must  proceed  with  our  analysis.  "  The  theology  of  the 
intellect,"  we  are  told,  "  conforms  to  the  laws,  subserves  the 
wants,  and  secures  the  approval  of  our  intuitive  and  deductive 
powers.  It  includes  the  decisions  of  the  judgment,  of  the  per- 
ceptive part  of  conscience  and  taste,  indeed  of  all  the  faculties 
which  are  essential  to  the  reasoning  process.  It  is  the  theology 
of  speculation,  and  therefore  comprehends  the  truth  just  as  it  is, 
unmodified  by  excitements  of  feeling.  It  is  received  as  accurate 
not  in  its  spirit  only,  but  in  its  letter  also."  P.  534.'  It  de- 
mands evidence.  It  prefers  general  to  individual  statements, 
the  abstract  to  the  concrete,  the  literal  to  the  figurative.  Its 
aim  is  not  to  be  impressive,  but  intelligible  and  defensible.  For 
example,  it  affirms  "  that  he  who  united  in  his  person  a  human 
body,  a  human  soul,  and  a  divine  spirit,  expired  on  the  cross,  but 
it  does  not  originate  the  phrase  that  the  soul  expired,  nor  that 
'  God,  the  mighty  Maker,  died.'"  "  It  would  never  suggest  the 
unqualified  remark  that  Christ  has  fully  paid  the  debt  of  sinners, 
for  it  declares  that  this  debt  may  be  justly  claimed  from  them  ; 
nor  that  he  suffered  the  whole  punishment  which  they  deserve, 
for  it  teaches  that  this  punishment  may  still  be  righteously  in- 
flicted on  themselves  ;  nor  that  he  has  entirely  satisfied  the  law, 
for  it  insists  that  the  demands  of  the  law  are  yet  in  force."  It 
gives  origin  to  "no  metaphor  so  bold,  and  so  liable  to  disfigure 

'  Our  references  are  to  the  reprint  of  the  Sermon  in  tlie  BibUotheca  Sacra,  for  July, 
1850. 


AND     THAT     OF     THE     FEELINGS,  545 

our  idea  of  the  divine  equity  as  that  Heaven  imputes  the  crime 
of  one  man  to  millions  of  his  descendants,  and  then  imputes  their 
myriad  sins  to  him  who  was  harmless  and  undefiled."  "  It  is 
suited  not  for  eloquent  appeals,  but  for  calm  controversial  treatises 
and  bodies  of  divinity  ;  not  so  well  for  the  hymn-book  as  for  the 
catechism  ;  not  so  well  for  the  liturgy  as  for  the  creed."  P.  535. 
We  must  pause  here  for  a  moment.  It  so  happens  that  all 
the  illustrations  which  our  author  gives  of  modes  of  expression 
which  the  theology  of  the  intellect  would  not  adopt,  are  the  pro- 
ducts of  that  theology.  They  are  the  language  of  speculation, 
of  theory,  of  the  intellect,  as  distinguished  from  the  feelings — 
that  Christ  bore  our  punishment  ;  that  he  satisfied  the  law ; 
that  Adam's  sin  is  imputed  to  us,  and  our  sins  to  Christ,  are  all 
generalizations  of  the  intellect ;  they  are  summations  of  the  mani- 
fold and  diversified  representations  of  Scripture ;  they  are  ab- 
stract propositions  embodying  the  truth  presented  in  the  figures, 
facts,  and  didactic  assertions  found  in  the  sacred  writing.  It 
would  be  impossible  to  pick  out  of  the  whole  range  of  theological 
statements,  any  which  are  less  impassioned,  or  which  are  more 
purely  addressed  to  the  intellect.  They  have  been  framed  for 
the  very  purpose  of  being  "  intelligible  and  defensible."  They 
answer  every  criterion  the  author  himself  proposes  for  distin- 
guishing the  language  of  the  intellect  from  that  of  the  feeling. 
Accordingly,  these  are  the  precise  representations  given  in  cate- 
chisms, in  calm  controversial  treatises  and  bodies  of  divinity  for 
strictly  didactic  purposes.  They  are  found  in  the  accurately 
worded  and  carefully  balanced  confessions  of  faith,  designed  to 
state  with  all  possible  precision  the  intellectual  propositions  to 
be  received  as  true.  These  are  the  very  representations,  more- 
over, which  have  been  held  up  to  reproach  as  "  theoretical,"  as 
''  philosophy"  introduced  into  the  Bible.  Whether  they  are  cor- 
rect or  incorrect,  is  not  now  the  question.  What  we  assert  is,  that 
if  there  be  any  such  thing  as  the  theology  of  the  intellect  ;  any 
propositions  framed  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  the  demands  of 
the  intelligence  ;  any  purely  abstract  and  didactic  formulee,  these 
are  they.  Yet  Professor  Park,  simply  because  he  does  not  recog- 
nize them  as  true,  puts  them  under  the  category  of  feeling,  and 
represents  them  as  passionate  expressions  designed  not  to  be  in- 
telligible, but  impressive  ;  addressed  not  to  the  intellect  but  to 
the  emotions  ! 

35 


546  THE    THEOLOGY    OF     THE    INTELLECT 

The  theology  of  the  feelings  is  declared  to  be  the  form  of  be- 
lief which  is  suggested  by,  and  adapted  to  the  wants  of  the  well- 
trained  heart.  It  is  embraced  as  involving  the  substance  of 
truth,  although,  when  literally  interpreted,  it  may,  or  may  not 
be  false.  It  studies  not  the  exact  proportions  of  doctrine,  but 
gives  special  prominence  to  those  features  which  are  thought  to 
be  most  grateful  to  the  sensibilities.  It  insists  not  on  dialectical 
argument,  but  receives  whatever  the  healthy  affections  crave. 
P.  535.  It  sacrifices  abstract  remarks  to  visible  and  tangible 
images.  It  is  satisfied  with  vague,  indefinite  representations.  P. 
536.  For  example,  instead  of  saying  God  can  do  all  things 
which  are  the  objects  of  power,  it  says,  He  spake  and  it  was 
done.  Instead  of  saying  that  the  providence  of  God  comprehends 
aU  events  ;  it  says,  "  The  children  of  men  put  their  trust  under 
the  cover  of  Jehovah's  wings."  To  keep  back  the  Jews  from  the 
vices  and  idolatry  of  their  neighbors,  it  plied  them  with  a  stern 
theology  which  represented  God  as  jealous  and  angry,  and  armed 
with  bow,  arrows,  and  glittering  sword.  But  when  they  needed 
a  soothing  influence,  they  were  told  that  "  the  Lord  feedeth  his 
flock  like  a  shepherd."  It  represents  Christians  as  united  to 
their  Lord  as  the  branch  to  the  vine,  or  the  members  to  the 
head  ;  but  it  does  not  mean  to  have  these  endearing  words  meta- 
morphosed into  an  intellectual  theory  of  our  oneness  with  Christ, 
for  with  another  end  in  view  it  teaches  that  he  is  distinct  from 
us,  as  a  captain  from  his  soldiers.  The  free  theology  of  the  feel- 
ings is  ill-fitted  for  didactic  or  controversial  treatises  or  doctrinal 
standards.  Anything,  everything  can  be  proved  from  the  writ- 
ings of  those  addicted  to  its  use,  because  they  indite  sentences 
congenial  with  an  excited  heart,  but  false  as  expressions  of 
deliberate  opinion.  P.  537.  This  is  the  theology  of  and  for  our 
sensitive  nature,  of  and  for  the  normal  emotion,  affection, 
passion.  It  is,  moreover,  permanent.  Ancient  philosophy  has 
perished,  ancient  poetry  is  as  fresh  as  ever.  So  the  theology 
of  reason  changes,  theory  chases  theory,  "  but  the  theology  of 
the  heart,  letting  the  minor  accuracies  go  for  the  sake  of  holding 
strongly  upon  the  substance  of  doctrine,  need  not  always  accom- 
modate itself  to  scientific  changes,  but  may  often  use  its  old  state- 
ments, even  if,  when  literally  understood,  they  be  incorrect,'  and 

•  This  is  a  rather  dangerous  principle.     Rhor,  superintendent  of  Weimar,  though  a 
pure  Deist,  admitting  nothing  but  the  doctrines  of  natural  religion,  still  insisted  on 


AND    THAT    OF     THE    FEELINGS.  547 

it  thus  abides  peiTtianent  as  are  the  main  impressions  of  the 
truth."  P.  539. 

We  must  again  pause  in  our  analysis.  If  there  be  any  such  thing 
as  the  theology  of  the  feeling  as  distinct  from  that  of  the  intel- 
lect, the  passages  cited  above  neither  prove  nor  illustrate  it.  Our 
author  represents  the  feelings  as  expressing  themselves  in  figures, 
and  demanding  "  visible  and  tangible  images."  We  question  the 
correctness  of  this  statement.  The  highest  language  of  emotion 
is  generally  simple.  Nothing  satisfies  the  mind  when  under 
great  excitement  but  literal  or  perfectly  intelligible  expressions. 
Then  is  not  the  time  for  rhetorical  phrases.  There  is  a  lower 
state  of  feeling,  a  placid  calmness,  which  delights  in  poetic  im- 
agery, which  at  once  satisfies  the  feelings  and  excites  the  imag- 
ination, and  thus  becomes  the  vehicle  of  moral  and  assthetic 
emotions  combined.  The  emotions  of  terror  and  sublimity  also, 
as  they  are  commonly  excited  through  the  imagination,  naturally 
clothe  themselves  in  imaginative  language.  But  the  moral,  re- 
ligious, and  social  affections,  when  strongly  moved,  commonly 
demand  the  simplest  form  of  utterance.  "  Holy,  Holy,  Holy  is 
the  Lord  of  Hosts,"  is  the  language  of  seraphic  devotion,  yet 
what  mqre  simple  !  "  The  loving  kindness  of  the  Lord  is  over 
all  his  works,"  is  surely  as  much  the  language  of  feeling,  and 
tends  as  directly  to  excite  gratitude  and  confidence,  as  saying, 
"  The  Lord  is  my  shepherd,"  The  most  pathetic  lamentation 
upon  record  is  that  of  David  over  his  son  Absalom,  which  is 
indeed,  an  apostrophe,  but  nothing  can  be  freer  from  tropical 
expression.  How  simple,  also,  is  the  language  of  penitence  as 
recorded  in  the  Bible.  "  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner  !" 
"  Against  thee,  thee  only  have  I  sinned  and  done  this  evil  in  thy 
sight."  '"'  Behold  I  am  vile,  what  shall  I  answer  thee  .^"  "  0  my 
God  !  I  am  ashamed,  and  blush  to  lift  up  my  face  to  thee  my 
God." 

Admitting,  however,  that  figurative  language  is  the  usual 
vehicle  of  emotion,  this  affords  no  foundation  for  the  distinction 

the  propriety  of  retaining  the  language  and  current  representations  of  orthodox  Chris- 
tians, and  telling  the  people  in  his  public  ministrations  that  Christ  was  the  Lamb  of 
Grod  who  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world ;  that  men  are  saved  by  his  blood.  He 
did  not  thinlc  it  necessary  that  the  language  designed  to  move  the  people  "  should 
accommodate  itself  to  scientific  changes,"  even,  when,  if  literally  understood  {i.  e.,  if 
understood  according  to  its  tnie  import)  it  was  incorrect.  It  is  ea,gy  to  see  what  lat- 
itude in  saying  one  thing  and  meaning  another,  this  principle  will  allow. 


548      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

between  the  theology  of  feeling  and  the  theology  of  the  intellect 
— the  one  vague  and  inaccurate,  the  other  precise  and  exact. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  figurative  language  is  just  as  definite  in 
its  meaning  and  just  as  intelligible  as  the  most  literal.  After 
the  church  had  been  struggling  for  centuries  to  find  language 
sufficiently  precise  to  express  distinctly  its  consciousness  respect- 
ing the  person  of  Christ,  it  adopted  the  figurative  language  of 
the  Athanasian  creed,  "  Grod  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  Begotten, 
and  not  made."  Calling  God  our  shepherd  presents  as  definite 
an  idea  to  the  mind  as  the  most  Kteral  form  of  expression.  To 
say  that  God  is  angry,  or  jealous,  expresses  as  clearly  the  truth 
that  his  nature  is  opposed  to  sin,  as  the  most  abstract  terms 
could  no.  We  have  here  no  evidence  of  two  kinds  of  theology, 
the  one  alBfirming  what  the  other  denies  ;  the  one  true  to  the 
feelings  and  false  to  the  intellect,  and  the  reverse.  The  two 
passages  on  which  this  sermon  is  founded,  chosen  for  the  purpose 
of  illustrating  this  theory,  might  be  selected  to  show  that  it  is 
without  foundation.  The  declarations,  "  God  repented,"  and 
"  God  cannot  repent,"  do  not  belong  to  different  categories  ;  the 
one  is  not  the  language  of  feeling  and  the  other  of  the  intelli- 
gence ;  the  one  does  not  affirm  what  the  other  denies.  Both  are 
figurative.  Both  are  intelligible.  The  one,  in  its  connection, 
expresses  God's  disapprobation  of  sin,  the  other,  his  immuta- 
bility. The  one  addresses  the  sensibilities  as  much  as  the  other  ; 
and  the  one  is  as  much  directed  to  the  intellect  as  the  other.  To 
found  two  conflicting  kinds  of  theology  on  such  passages  as  these, 
is  as  unreasonable  as  it  would  be  to  build  two  systems  of  anthro- 
pology on  the  verbally  contradictory  propositions  constantly  used 
about  men.  We  say  a  man  is  a  lion,  and  we  say,  he  is  not  a 
quadraped.  Do  these  assertions  require  a  new  theory  of  psychol- 
ogy, or  even  a  new  theory  of  interpretation  in  order  to  bring  them 
into  harmony  ?  Figurative  language,  when  interpreted  liter- 
ally, will  of  course  express  what  is  false  to  the  intellect  ;  but  it , 
will  in  that  case,  be  no  less  false  to  the  taste  and  to  the  feelings. 
Such  language,  when  interpreted  according  to  established 
usage,  and  made  to  mean  what  it  was  intended  to  express,  is 
not  only  definite  in  its  import,  but  it  never  expresses  what  is 
false  to  the  intellect.  The  feelings  demand  truth  in  their  object ; 
and  no  utterance  is  natural  or  efiective  as  the  language  of  emo- 
tion, which  does  not  satisfy  the  understanding.     Sapng  God  re- 


AND    THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS.  549 

pents,  that  he  is  jealous  ;  that  he  is  our  shepherd  ;  that  men 
hide  under  the  shadow  of  his  wings,  are  true  to  the  intelligence 
in  the  precise  sense  in  which  they  are  true  to  the  feelings  ;  and 
it  is  only  so  far  as  they  are  true  to  the  former  that  they  are  effec- 
tive or  appropriate  for  the  latter.  It  is  because  calling  Grod  our 
shej)herd  presents  the  idea  of  a  person  exercising  a  kind  care 
over  us,  that  it  has  power  to  move  the  affections.  If  it  presented 
any  conception  inconsistent  with  the  truth  it  would  grate  on  the 
feehngs,  as  much  as  it  would  offend  the  intellect.  We  object, 
therefore,  to  our  author's  exposition  of  his  doctrine,  first,  because 
much  that  he  cites  as  the  language  of  feeling  is  incorrectly  cited ; 
and  secondly,  because,  granting  his  premises,  his  conclusion  does 
not  follow.  A  third  objection  is,  that  he  is  perfectly  arbitrary  in 
the  application  of  his  theory.  Because  figurative  language  is 
not  to  be  interpreted  literally,  the  Socinian  infers  that  all  that  is 
said  in  Scripture  in  reference  to  the  sacrificial  nature  of  Christ's 
death,  is  to  be  understood  as  expressing  nothing  more  than  the 
truth  that  he  died  for  the  benefit  of  others.  When  the  patriot 
dies  for  his  countiy  ;  or  a  mother  wears  herself  out  in  the  service 
of  her  child,  we  are  wont  to  say,  they  sacrifice  themselves  for  the 
object  of  their  affection.  This  deceives  no  one.  It  expresses  the 
simple  truth  that  they  died  for  the  good  of  others.  Whether 
this  is  all  that  the  Scriptures  mean  when  they  call  Christ  a  sac- 
rifice, is  not  to  be  determined  by  settling  the  general  principle 
that  figures  are  not  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the  letter. 
That  is  conceded.  But  figures  have  a  meaning  which  is  not  to 
be  explained  away  at  pleasure.  Professor  Park  would  object  to 
this  exposition  of  the  design  of  Christ's  death,  not  by  insisting 
that  figurative  language  is  to  be  interpreted  literally,  but  by 
showing  that  these  figures  are  designed  to  teach  more  than  the 
Socinian  is  willing  to  admit.  In  like  manner  we  say,  that  if  we 
were  disposed  to  admit  the  distinction  between  the  theology  of 
the  feelings  and  that  of  the  intellect,  as  equivalent  to  that  be- 
tween figurative  and  literal  language,  or,  as  our  author  says,  be- 
tween poetry  and  prose,  we  should  still  object  to  his  application 
of  his  principle.  He  is  just  as  arbitrary  in  explaining  away  the 
scriptural  representations  of  original  sin,  of  the  satisfaction  of 
divine  justice  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  as  the  Socinian  is  in  the 
application  of  his  principle.  He  just  as  obviously  violates  the 
established  laws  of  language,  and  just   as  plainly  substitutes 


550  THE    THEOLOGY    OF     THE    INTELLECT 

the  speculations  of  his  own  mind  for  the  teachings  of  the  word  of 
Grod.  Entirely  irrespective,  therefore,  of  the  validity  of  our 
author's  theory,  we  object  to  this  sermon  that  it  discards,  as  the 
language  of  emotion,  historical,  didactic,  argumentative  state- 
ments, and  in  short,  everything  he  is  not  willing  to  receive,  as 
far  as  appears,  for  no  other  reason,  and  by  no  other  rule  than 
his  own  repugnance  to  what  is  thus  presented. 

Having  considered  some  of  the  differences  between  the  emo- 
tive and  intellectual  theology,  the  author  adverts  to  the  influence 
which  the  one  exerts  over  the  other.  And  first  the  theology  of 
the  intellect  illustrates  and  vivifies  itself  by  that  of  the  feelings. 
We  must  add  a  body,  he  says,  to  the  soul  of  a  doctrine,  whenever 
we  would  make  it  palpable  and  enlivening.  The  whole  doctrine 
of  the  spiritual  world,  is  one  that  requires  to  be  rendered  tangi- 
ble by  embodiment.  An  intellectual  view  is  too  general  to  be 
embraced  by  the  feelings.  They  are  balked  with  the  notion  of  a 
spaceless,  formless  existence,  continuing  between  death  and  the 
resurrection,  p.  540. 

In  the  second  place,  the  theology  of  the  intellect  enlarges  and 
improves  that  of  the  feelings,  and  is  also  enlarged  and  improved 
by  it.  The  more  extensive  and  accurate  are  our  views  of  literal 
truth,  so  much  the  more  numerous  and  salutary  are  the  forms 
which  it  may  assume  for  enlisting  the  affections.  It  is  a  tend- 
ency of  pietism  to  undervalue  the  human  intellect  for  the  salce  of 
exalting  the  affections,  as  if  the  reason  had  fallen  deeper  than 
the  will.  It  cannot  be  a  pious  act  to  underrate  those  powers 
which  are  given  by  him  who  made  the  soul  in  his  image.  We 
must  speculate.  The  heart  is  famished  by  an  idle  intellect. 
When  fed  by  an  enquiring  mind,  it  is  enlivened,  and  reaches  out 
for  an  expanded  faith. 

The  theology  of  reason  not  only  amends  and  amphfies  that  of 
the  affections,  it  is  also  improved  and  enlarged  by  it.  When  a 
feeling  is  constitutional  and  cannot  but  be  approved,  it  furnishes 
data  to  the  intellect  by  means  of  which  it  may  add  new  materials 
to  its  dogmatic  system.  The  doctrines  which  concentrate  in  and 
around  a  vicarious  atonement  are  so  fitted  to  the  appetences  of  a 
sanctified  heart,  as  to  gain  the  favor  of  the  logician,  precisely  as 
the  coincidence  of  some  geological  or  astronomical  theories  with 
the  phenomena  of  the  earth  or  sky,  is  part  of  the  syllogism  which 
has  these  theories  for  its  conclusion.     The  fact  that  the  faith- 


AND     THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS.  551 

All  in  all  ages  concur  in  one  substance  of  belief,  is  a  proof  of  the 
correctness  of  their  faith.  The  church  is  not  infallible  in  her 
bodies  of  divinity,  nor  her  creeds,  nor  catechisms,  nor  any  logical 
formula  ;  but  underneath  all,  there  lies  a  grand  substance  of 
doctrine,  around  which  the  feelings  of  all  reverent  men  cling  ever 
and  everywhere,  and  which  must  be  right,  for  it  is  precisely  ad- 
justed to  the  soul,  and  the  soul  was  made  for  it.  These  universal 
feelings  provide  a  test  for  our  faith.  Whenever  our  representa- 
tions fail  to  accord  with  those  feelings  something  must  be  wrong. 
"  Our  sensitive  nature  is  sometimes  a  kind  of  instinct  which  an- 
ticipates many  truths,  incites  the  mind  to  search  for  them,  inti- 
mates the  process  of  investigation,  and  remains  unsatisfied  until 
it  finds  the  object  towards  which  it  gropes  its  way. 

But  while  the  theology  of  reason  derives  aid  from  the  impulses 
of  emotion,  it  maintains  its  ascendancy  over  them.  In  all  inves- 
tigations for  truth,  the  intellect  must  be  the  authoritative  power, 
employing  the  sensibilities  as  indices  of  right  doctrine,  but  sur- 
veying and  superintending  them  from  its  commanding  elevation, 
p. '.543-546. 

In  the  third  place,  the  theology  of  the  intellect  explains  that 
of  the  feeling  into  essential  agreement  with  all  the  constitutional 
demands  of  the  soul.  It  does  this  by  collecting  all  the  discordant 
representations  which  the  heart  allows,  and  eliciting  the  one  self- 
consistent  principle  which  underlies  them.  The  Bible  represents 
the  heart  sometimes  as  stone,  sometimes  as  flesh  ;  sometimes  as 
dead,  sometimes  alive  ;  sometimes  as  needing  to  be  purified  by 
God,  sometimes  as  able  to  purify  itself,  &c.,  &c.  These  expres- 
sions, literally  understood,  are  dissonant.  The  intellect  educes 
light  from  these  repugnant  phrases,  and  reconciles  them  into  the 
doctrine,  '■'tha.t  the  character  of  our  race  needs  an  essential  trans- 
formation hy  an  interposed  influence  of  God,"  p.  547.  Certainly 
a  very  genteel  way  of  expressing  the  matter,  which  need  oifend 
no  one,  Jew  or  Gentile,  Augustin  or  Pelagius.  All  may  say  that 
much,  and  make  it  mean  more  or  less  at  pleasure.  If  such  is 
the  sublimation  to  which  the  theology  of  the  intellect  is  to  sub- 
ject the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  they  will  soon  be  dissipated  into 
thin  air. 

Another  illustration  is  borrowed  from  "the  heart's  phrases" 
respecting  its  ability.  Sometimes  the  man  of  God  longs  to  abase 
himself,  and  exclaims  without  one  modifying  word  :  "  I  am  too 


662      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

frail  for  my  responsibilities,  and  have  no  power  to  do  what  is  re- 
quired of  me."  At  another  time  he  says  :  "  I  know  thee,  that 
thou  art  not  a  hard  master,  exacting  of  me  duties  which  I  have 
no  power  to  discharge,  hut  thou  attemperest  thy  law  to  my 
strength,  and  at  no  time  imposest  upon  me  a  heavier  burden 
than  thou  at  that  very  time  makest  me  able  to  bear."  The  rea- 
son seeks  out  some  principle  to  reconcile  these  and  similar  con- 
tradictions, and  finds  it,  as  Professor  Park  thinks,  in  the  doc- 
trine that  man,  with  no  extraordinary  aid  from  divine  grace,  is 
fully  set  in  those  wayward  preferences  which  are  an  abuse  of  his 
freedom.  His  unvaried  wrong  choices  imply  a  full,  unremitted 
natural  power  of  choosing  right.  The  emotive  theology,  there- 
fore, when  it  affirms  this  power  is  correct  both  in  matter  and 
style  ;  but  when  it  denies  this  power,  it  uses  the  language  of 
emphasis,  of  impression,  of  intensity  ;  it  means  the  certainty  of 
wrong  preference  by  declaring  the  inability  of  right  ;  and  in  its 
vivid  use  of  cannot  for  ivill  not  is  accurate  in  substance  but  not 
in  form,  p.  549. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  it  is  not  the  language  of  excited, 
fanatical,  fallible  men  that  our  author  undertakes  thus  to  evis- 
cerate, but  the  formal  didactic  assertions  of  the  inspired  writers. 
We  can  hardly  think  that  he  can  himself  be  blind  to  the  nature 
of  the  process  which  he  here  indicates.  The  Bible  plainly,  not  in 
impassioned  language,  but  in  the  most  direct  terms,  asserts  the 
inability  of  men  to  certain  acts  necessary  to  their  salvation.  It 
explains  the  nature,  and  teaches  the  origin  of  that  inability. 
This  doctrine,  however,  is  in  conflict,  not  with  other  assertions 
of  Scripture,  for  there  are  no  counter  statements,  but  with  a 
peculiar  theory  of  responsibility,  which  the  author  adopts  ;  and 
therefore,  all  the  expressions  of  this  truth  are  to  be  set  down  to 
irrational  feeling  which  does  not  understand  itself.  Thus  a  doc- 
trine which  is  found  in  the  symbols  of  all  churches,  Latin,  Luth- 
eran, and  Reformed,  is  explained  out  of  the  Bible,  and  the  most 
vapid  formula  of  Pelagianism  (viz.  that  present  strength  to  moral 
and  spiritual  duties  is  the  measure  of  obligation),  put  in  its  place. 
The  author  has  surely  forgot  what  a  few  pages  before  he  said 
of  the  informing  nature  of  Christian  consciousness.  If  there  is 
one  thing  which  that  consciousness  teaches  all  Christians,  more 
clearly  than  anything  else,  it  is  their  helplessness,  their  inabihty 
to  do  what  reason,  conscience,  and  God  require,  in  the  plain  un- 


AND    THAT     OF     THE    FEELINGS.  558 

sophisticated  sense  of  the  word  inability.  And  we  venture  to 
say  that  no  Christian  ever  used  from  the  heart,  such  language  as 
Professor  Park  jjuts  into  the  "good  man's"  mouth,  about  his 
power  to  do  all  that  God  requires.  Such  is  not  the  language  of 
the  heart,  but  of  a  head  made  light  by  too  much  theorizing. 
Give  us,  by  all  means,  the  theology  of  the  heart,  in  prefi'rence  to 
the  theology  of  the  intellect.  We  would  a  thousandfold  rather 
take  our  faith  from  Professor  Park's  feelings  than  from  what  he 
miscalls  his  reason,  but  which  is  in  fact  the  fragments  of  a  phi- 
losophy that  was,  but  is  not. 

His  fourth  remark  is,  that  the  theology  of  the  intellect,  and 
that  of  the  feeling  tend  to  keep  each  other  within  the  sphere  for 
which  they  were  respectively  designed,  and  in  which  they  are 
fitted  to  improve  the  character.  When  an  intellectual  state- 
ment is  transferred  to  the  province  of  emotion,  it  often  appears 
chilling,  lifeless  ;  and  when  a  passionate  phrase  is  transferred  to 
the  dogmatic  province,  it  often  appears  grotesque,  unintelligible, 
absurd.  To  illustrate  this  point  he  refers  to  the  declaration  in 
reference  to  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  eucharist.  "  This  is  my 
body,  this  is  my  blood."  To  excited  feelings  such  language  is 
appropriate,  but  no  sooner  are  these  phrases  transmuted  into 
utterances  of  intellectual  judgments,  than  they  become  absurd. 
So  the  lamentation  :  "  Behold  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in 
sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me,"  is  natural  and  proper  as  an  ex- 
pression of  penitential  feelings.  But  if  seized  by  a  theorist  to 
straighten  out  into  the  dogma  that  man  is  blamable  before  he 
chooses  to  do  wrong,  deserving  of  punishment  for  the  involun- 
tary nature  which  he  has  never  consented  to  gratify,  really  sinful 
before  we  actually  sin,  then  all  is  confusion. 

Here  again  a  plain  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  incorporated  in  all 
Christian  creeds,  inwrought  into  all  Christian  experience,  is  re- 
jected in  deference  to  the  theory  that  all  sin  consists  in  acts  ;  a 
theory  which  ninety-nine  hundredths  of  all  good  men  utterly  re- 
pudiate ;  a  theory  which  never  has  had  a  standing  in  the  symbols 
of  any  Christian  church,  a  clear  proof  that  it  is  in  conflict  with 
the  common  consciousness  of  believers.  Because  the  doctrine 
here  discarded  finds  expression  in  a  penitential  psalm,  is  surely 
no  proof  that  it  is  not  a  doctrine  of  Scripture.  Thomas's  pas- 
sionate exclamation  at  the  feet  of  his  risen  Saviour,  "  My  Lord 
and  my  God,"  is  no  proof  that  the  divinity  of  Christ  belongs  to 


554      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

the  theology  of  feeling,  and  is  to  be  rejected  by  the  reason.  It 
is  because  such  doctrines  are  didactically  taught  in  the  Bible, 
and  presented  as  articles  of  faith,  that  they  work  themselves  into 
the  heart,  and  find  expression  in  its  most  passionate  language. 
The  doctrine  of  innate  sinful  depravity  does  not  rest  on  certain 
poetic  phrases,  it  is  assumed  and  accounted  for  it  ;  it  is  impli- 
cated in  the  doctrines  of  redemption,  regeneration,  and  baptism  ; 
it  is  sustained  by  arguments  from  analogy,  experience,  and  con- 
sciousness ;  it  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  universal  faith  of  Chris- 
tendom, and  its  rejection,  on  the  score  that  passionate  phrases 
are  not  to  be  interpreted  by  the  letter,  is  as  glaring  an  example 
of  subjecting  Scripture  to  theory,  as  the  history  of  interpretation 
affords. 

In  the  conclusion. of  his  discourse,  our  author  represents  the 
confusion  of  the  two  kinds  of  theology,  which  he  endeavors  to 
discriminate  as  a  great  source  of  evil.  "  Grave  errors,"  he  says, 
"have  arisen  from  so  simple  a  cause  as  that  of  confounding 
poetry  with  prose."  Is  it  not  a  still  more  dangerous  mistake  to 
turn  prose  into  poetry  ?  What  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  have 
Eationalists,  by  that  simple  process,  failed  to  explain  away  ? 
What  do  they  make  of  the  ascription  of  divine  names  and  at- 
tributes to  Christ,  but  eastern  metaphor  and  hyperbole  .^  How 
do  they  explain  the  worship  paid  to  him  on  earth  and  in  heaven, 
but  as  the  language  of  passion,  which  the  intellect  repudiates  ? 
The  fact  is,  that  poetry  and  prose  have  their  fixed  rules  of  inter- 
pretation, and  there  is  no  danger  of  mistaking  the  one  for  the 
other,  nor  are  they  ever  so  mistaken,  where  there  is  a  disposition 
humbly  to  receive  the  truth  they  teach. 

"  In  the  Bible,"  says  our  author,  "  there  are  pleasing  hints  of 
many  things  which  were  never  designed  to  be  doctrines,  such  as 
the  literal  and  proper  necessity  of  the  will,  passive  and  physical 
sin,  baptismal  regeneration,  clerical  absolution,  the  literal  impu- 
tation of  guilt  to  the  innocent,  transubstantiation,  eternal  gener- 
ation and  procession.  In  that  graceful  volume,  these  metaphors 
(,?)  bloom  as  the  flowers  of  the  field  ;  tliere  they  toil  not  neither 
do  they  spin.  But  the  schoolman  has  transplanted  them  to  the 
rude  exposure  of  logic,  there  they  are  frozen  up,  their  juices 
evaporated,  and  their  withered  leaves  are  preserved  as  specimens 
of  that  which  in  its  rightful  place  surpassed  the  glory  of  the 
wisest  sage."  P.  558.     It  would  be  a  pity  to  throw  the  vail  of 


AND     THAT     OF    THE    FEELINGS.  555 

comment  over  the  self-evidencing  light  of  such  a  sentence.     Its 
animus  is  self-revealing. 

A  more  cheering  inference  from  the  doctrine  of  his  sermon  our 
author  finds  in  the  revelation  it  affords  of  "  the  identity  in  the 
essence  of  many  systems  which  are  run  in  scientific  or  eesthetic 
moulds  unlike  each  other."  There  are,  indeed,  kinds  of  theology 
which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  each  other.  There  is  a  life,  a 
soul,  a  vitalizing  spirit  of  truth,  which  must  never  be  relinquished 
for  the  sake  of  peace,  even  with  an  angel.  "  There  is,"  as  we 
rejoice  to  hear  our  author  say,  "  a  line  of  separation  which  can- 
not be  crossed,  between  those  systems  which  insert,  and  those 
which  omit  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  in  the  sacrifice 
of  Jesus.  This  is  the  doctrine  which  blends  in  itself  the  theology 
of  intellect  and  feeling,  and  which  can  no  more  be  struck  out 
from  the  moral,  than  the  sun  from  the  planetary  system.  Here 
the  mind  and  the  heart,  like  justice  and  mercy,  meet,  and  em- 
brace each  other  ;  and  here  is  found  the  specific  and  ineflaceable 
difference  between  the  gospel  and  every  other  system.  But 
among  those  who  admit  the  atoning  death  of  Christ  as  the  or- 
ganic principle  of  their  faith,  there  are  differences,  some  of 
them  more  important,  but  many  far  less  important  than  they 
seem  to  be.  One  man  prefers  a  theology  of  the  judgment ;  a 
second,  that  of  the  imagination ;  a  third,  that  of  the  heart  ;  one 
n.djusts  his  faith  to  a  lymphatic,  another  to  a  sanguine,  and  still 
another  to  a  choleric  temperament.  Yet  the  subject  matter  of 
these  heterogeneous  configurations  may  often  be  one  and  the 
same,  having  for  its  nucleus  the  same  cross,  with  the  formative 
influence  of  which  all  is  safe."  P.  559.  But  what  in  the  midst 
of  all  these  diversities  becomes  of  God's  word  ?  Is  that  so  mul- 
tiform and  heterogeneous  in  its  teaching  ?  Or  is  the  rule  of 
faith  after  all  subjective,  a  man's  temperament  and  preferences  ? 
It  is  obvious,  first,  that  the  Scriptures  teach  one  definite  form  of 
faith  to  which  it  is  the  duty  and  for  the  spiritual  interests  of 
every  man  to  conform  his  faith,  and  every  departure  from  which  is 
evil  and  tends  to  evil.  Secondly,  that  there  is  doubtless  far  more 
agreement  in  the  apprehension,  and  inward  experience  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  Bible,  than  in  the  outward  expression  of  them  ; 
so  that  sincere  Christians  agree  much  more  nearly  in  their  faith 
than  they  do  in  their  professions.  Thirdly,  that  this  is  no  proof 
that  diversities  of  doctrinal  propositions  are  matters  of  small 


556      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

moment ;  or  that  we  may  make  light  of  all  differences  which  do 
not  affect  the  very  fundamentals  of  the  gospel.  Truth  and  holi- 
ness are  most  intimately  related.  The  one  produces  and  pro- 
motes the  other.  What  injures  the  one,  injures  also  the  other. 
Paul  warns  all  teachers  against  building,  even  on  the  true 
foundation,  with  wood,  hay,  and  stubble.  He  reminds  them  that 
God's  temple  is  sacred  ;  that  it  cannot  be  injured  with  impunity, 
and  that  those  who  inculcate  error  instead  of  truth,  will^  in  the 
great  day,  suffer  loss,  though  they  may  themselves  be  saved,  as 
by  fire.  It  will  avail  them  little  to  say  that  their  temperament 
was  lymphatic,  sanguine,  or  choleric,  that  they  conceived  of  truth 
themselves,  and  presented  it  to  others,  in  a  manner  suited  to 
their  idiosyncracies.  They  were  sent  to  teach  Grod's  word,  and 
not  their  own  fancies.  The  temple  of  God,  which  temple  is  the 
church,  is  not  to  be  built  up  by  rubbish. 

When  we  began  to  write,  we  intended  to  furnish  an  analysis  of 
this  discourse  before  making  any  remarks  on  the  views  which  it 
presents.  We  have  been  seduced,  however,  into  giving  expres- 
sion to  most  of  what  we  had  to  say,  in  the  form  of  comment  on 
the  successive  heads  of  the  sermon.  We  shall,  therefore,  not 
trespass  much  longer  on  the  reader's  patience.  There  are  two 
points  to  which  it  has  been  our  object  to  dhect  attention.  First, 
the  theory  here  propounded,  and  secondly,  the  application  which 
the  author  makes  of  his  principle. 

As  to  the  theory  itself,  it  seems  to  us  to  be  founded  on  a  wrong 
psychology.  Whatever  doctrine  the  writer  may  actually  hold  as 
to  the  nature  of  the  soul,  his  thoughts  and  language  are  evidently 
framed  on  the  assumption  of  a  much  greater  distinction  between 
the  cognitive  and  emotional  faculties  in  man  than  actually  ex- 
ists. The  very  idea  of  a  theology  of  feeling  as  distinct  from  that 
of  the  intellect,  seems  to  take  for  gi-anted  that  there  are  two 
percipient  principles  in  the  soul.  The  one  sees  a  proposition  to 
be  true,  the  other  sees  it  to  be  flilse.  The  one  adopts  symbols 
to  express  its  apprehensions  ;  the  other  is  precise  and  prosaic  in 
its  language.  We  know,  indeed,  that  the  author  would  repudi- 
ate this  statement,  and  deny  that  he  held  to  any  such  dualism 
in  the  soul.  We  do  not  charge  him  with  any  theoretic  convic- 
tion of  this  sort.  We  only  say  that  this  undue  dissevering  the 
human  faculties  underUes  his  whole  doctrine,  and  is  implied  in 
the  theory  which  he  has  advanced.     Both  Scripture  and  con- 


AND    THAT     OF     THE     FEELINGS.  557 

sciousness  teacli  that  the  soul  is  a  unit  ;  that  its  activity  is  one 
life.  The  one  rational  soul  apprehends,  feels,  and  determines. 
It  is  not  one  faculty  that  apprehends,  another  that  feels,  and  an- 
other that  determines.  Nor  can  you  separate  in  the  complex 
states  of  mind  of  which  we  are  every  moment  conscious,  the  feel- 
ing from  the  cognition.  From  the  very  nature  of  affection  in  a 
rational  heing,  the  intellectual  apprehension  of  its  object  is  essen- 
tial to  its  existence.  You  cannot  eliminate  the  intellectual  ele- 
ment, and  leave  the  feeling.  The  latter  is  but  an  attribute  of 
the  former,  as  much  fis  form  or  color  is  an  attribute  of  bodies. 
It  is  impossible,  therefore,  that  what  is  true  to  the  feelings 
should  be  false  to  the  intellect.  It  is  impossible  that  a  man 
should  have  the  feeling  {i.  e.,  the  consciousness)  of  inability  to 
change  his  own  heart,  and  yet  the  conviction  that  he  has  the  re- 
quisite power.  The  mind  cannot  exist  in  contradictory  states  at 
the  same  time.  Men  may  indeed  pass  from  one  state  to  another. 
They  may  sometimes  speak  under  the  influence  of  actual  ex- 
perience ;  and  sometimes  under  the  guidance  of  a  speculative 
theory ;  and  such  utterances  may  be  in  direct  conflict.  But  then 
the  contradiction  is  real  and  not  merely  apparent.  The  intel- 
lectual conviction  expressed  in  the  one  state,  is  the  direct  reverse 
of  that  expressed  in  tlie  other.  These  are  the  vacillations  of 
fallible  men,  whose  unstable  judgments  are  determined  by  the 
varying  conditions  of  their  minds.  We  have  known  men  edu- 
cated under  the  influence  of  a  sceptical  philosophy,  who  have 
Ijccorae  sincere  Christians.  Their  conversion  was,  of  course,  a 
.supernatural  process,  involving  a  change  of  faith  as  well  as  feel- 
ing. But  as  this  change  was  not  effected  by  a  scientific  refuta- 
tion of  their  former  opinions,  but  by  the  demonstration  of  the 
Spirit  revealing  to  them  the  truth  and  power  of  the  gospel ;  when 
the  hearts  of  such  men  grow  cold,  their  former  sceptical  views 
rise  before  them  in  all  their  logical  consistence,  and  demand  as- 
sent to  their  truth,  which  for  the  time  is  reluctantly  yielded, 
though  under  a  solemn  protest  of  the  conscience,  When  the 
Spirit  returns  revealing  Christ,  these  demons  of  doubt  vanish 
and  leave  the  soul  rejoicing  in  the  faith.  These  states  cannot 
co-exist.  The  one  is  not  a  state  of  feeling  ;  the  other  of  cog- 
nition. Both  are  not  true  ;  the  one  when  judged  by  one 
standard ;  and  the  other,  by  another.  They  are  opposite  and 
contradictory.    The  one  affirms  what  the  other  denies.   One  must 


558      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

be  false.  A  poor,  fallible  man  driven  about  by  the  waves,  may 
thus  give  utterance  to  different  theologies  under  different  states 
of  mind  ;  but  the  difference,  as  just  stated,  is  that  between  truth 
and  falsehood.  Nothing  of  this  kind  can  be  admitted  with  re- 
gard to  the  sacred  penmen,  and  therefore,  this  change  to  which 
uninspired  men  may  be  subject  in  their  apprehension  and  ex- 
pression of  religious  truth,  cannot  be  attributed  to  those  who 
spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  changes  just  referred  to  are  therefore  something  very  dif- 
ferent from  those  for  which  our  author  contends,  and  consequently 
the  occurrence  of  such  changes  in  the  experience  of  men,  is  no 
proof  of  the  correctness  of  his  theory  ;  neither  do  they  show  that 
the  mind  is  not  one  percipient,  feeling,  and  willing  agent.  The 
point  which  we  wish  now  to  urge  is  that  the  theory  of  Professor 
Park  assumes  a  greater  difference  in  the  faculties  of  the  soul  than 
actually  exists.  From  its  individuality  and  unity,  it  follows  that 
all  its  affections  suppose  a  cognition  of  their  appropriate  objects, 
and  that  such  cognition  is  an  intellectual  exercise,  and  must  be 
conformed  to  the  laws  of  the  intelligence  ;  and  consequently  in 
those  complex  states  of  mind  to  which  our  author  refers  as  illus- 
trating the  origin  of  the  theology  of  feeling,  the  rational  element, 
is  that  very  cognition  by  the  intellect  which  belongs  to  the  other 
form  of  theology.  Besides,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  although 
in  the  apprehension  of  speculative  truths,  as  in  mathematics,  for 
example,  the  cognition  is  purely  an  intellectual  exercise,  but  when 
the  object  is  an  aesthetic  or  moral  truth  the  apprehension  is  of 
necessity  complex.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  purely  intellect- 
ual cognition  of  a  moral  truth.  It  is  the  exercise  of  a  moral  na- 
ture ;  it  implies  moral  sensibility.  It  of  necessity,  involves  feel- 
ing to  a  greater  or  less  degree.  It  is  the  cognition  of  a  being 
sensitive  to  moral  distinctions,  and  without  that  sensibility  there 
can  be  no  such  cognition.  To  separate  these  two  elements  there- 
fore is  impossible,  and  to  place  them  in  collision  is  a  contradic- 
tion. A  man  can  no  more,  think  an  object  to  be  cold  which  he 
feels  to  be  warm,  or  to  be  beautiful  which  he  sees  to  be  deformed, 
than  he  can  apprehend  it  as  false  and  feel  it  to  be  true.  It  con- 
tradicts the  laws  of  our  nature  as  well  as  all  experience,  to  say 
that  the  feelings  apprehend  Christ  as  suffering  the  penalty  of 
the  law  in  our  stead,  while  the  intellect  pronounces  such  ap- 
prehension to  be  false.     You  might  as  well  say  that  we  feel  a 


AND     THAT    OF     THE    FEELINGS.  559 

thing  to  be  good  while  we  see  it  to  be  sinful,  or  feel  it 
to  be  pleasant  while  we  know  it  to  be  the  reverse.  Professor 
Park's  whole  theory  is  founded  upon  the  assumption  that  such 
contradictions  actually  exist.  It  supposes  not  different  modes 
of  activity,  but  different  percipient  agencies  in  the  soul.  It  as- 
sumes not  that  the  soul  can  perceive  one  way  at  one  time  and 
another  way  at  another  time,  which  all  admit,  but  that  the  feel- 
ings perceive  in  one  way  and  the  intellect  in  another ;  the  one 
seeino;  a  thino;  as  true  while  the  other  sees  it  to  be  false.  It  is 
important  to  note  the  distinction  between  the  different  judg- 
ments which  we  form  of  the  same  object,  in  different  states  of 
mind,  and  the  theory  of  this  discourse.  The  distinction  is  two- 
fold. The  diverse  successive  judgments  of  which  we  are  con- 
scious, are  different  intellectual  cognitions  ;  and  not  different 
modes  of  apprehending  the  same  object  by  different  faculties — 
the  feelings  and  the  intellect.  For  example,  if  a  man  judges  at 
one  time  Christianity  to  be  true,  and  at  another  that  it  is  false, 
it  would  be  absurd  to  say  that  it  is  true  to  his  feelings,  and  false 
to  his  intellect.  The  fact  is,  at  one  time  he  sees  the  evidence 
of  the  truth  of  the  gospel  and  assents  to  it.  At  others,  his 
mind  is  so  occupied  by  objections  that  he  cannot  believe.  This 
is  a  very  common  occiirrence.  A  man  in  health  and  fond  of 
philosophic  speculations,  may  get  his  mind  in  a  state  of  complete 
scepticism.  When  death  approaches,  or  when  he  is  convinced 
of  Bin,  he  is  a  firm  believer.  Or  at  one  timf^  the  doctrines  of 
man's  dependence,  of  Grod's  sovereignty,  and  the  like,  are  seen 
and  felt  to  be  true  ;  at  another,  they  are  seen  and  felt  to  be 
false  ;  that  is,  the  mind  rejects  them  with  conviction  and  emo- 
tion. In  all  such  cases  of  different  judgments,  we  have  different 
intellectual  apprehensions  as  well  as  different  feelings.  It  is  not 
that  a  proposition  is  true  to  the  intellect  and  false  to  the  feel- 
ings, or  the  reverse  ;  but  at  one  time  it  is  true  to  the  intellect 
and  at  another  false  to  the  same  faculty.  This,  which  is  a  fa- 
miliar fact  of  consciousness,  is,  we  apprehend,  very  different  from 
Professor  Park's  doctrine.  The  second  distinction  is  this.  Ac- 
cording to  our  author  these  conflicting  apprehensions  are  equally 
true.  It  is  true  to  the  feelings  that  Christ  satisfied  divine  just- 
ice ;  that  we  have  a  sinful  nature ;  that  we  are  unable  of  our- 
selves to  repent  and  believe  the  gospel,  but  all  these  propositions 
are  false  to  the  intellect.     He  therefore  can  reconcile  it  with  his 


560  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    INTELLECT 

views,  that  good  men,  and  even  the  inspired  writers,  should 
sometimes  afifirm  and  sometimes  deny  these  and  similar  propo- 
sitions. We  maintain  that  such  propositions  are  irreconcilable. 
The  one  judgment  is  true  and  the  other  false.  Both  can  never 
be  uttered  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit.  He  cannot  lead 
the  sinner  to  feel  his  helplessness,  and  inspire  Paul  to  deny  it ;' 
much  less  can  he  inspire  men  sometimes  to  assert,  and  some- 
times to  deny  the  same  thing.  When  the  mind  passes,  as  we 
all  know  it  repeatedly  does,  from  the  disbelief  to  the  belief  of 
those  and  other  doctrines,  it  is  a  real  change  in  its  cognitions  as 
well  as  in  its  feelings — a  change  which  implies  fallibility  and  er- 
ror, and  which  therefore  can  have  no  place  in  the  Bible,  and  can 
furnish  no  rule  of  interpreting  its  language,  or  the  language  of 
Christian  experience.  To  make  the  distinction  between  Profes- 
sor Park's  theory  and  the  common  doctrine  on  this  subject,  the 
more  apparent,  we  call  attention  to  their  different  results.  He 
teaches  that  the  theology  of  feelings  which  apprehends  and  ex- 
presses truth  in  forms  which  the  intellect  cannot  sanction,  is  ap- 
propriate to  the  Hymn  Book  and  the  Liturgy.  He  assumes  that 
forms  of  devotion  which  are  designed  to  express  religious  feeling 
may  properly  contain  much  that  the  intelligence  rejects  as  false. 
He  condemns  those  critics  who  "are  ready  to  exclude  from  our 
psalms  and  hymns  all  such  stanzas  as  are  not  accurate  expres- 
sions of  dogmatic  truth."  In  opposition  to  this  view,  we  main- 
tain that  the  feelings  demand  truth,  i.  e.,  truth  which  satisfies 
the  intellect,  in  the  appropriation  and  expression  of  their  object. 
The  form  in  which  that  truth  is  expressed  may  be  figurative,  but 
it  must  have  the  sanction  of  the  understanding.  The  least  sus- 
picion of  falsehood  destroys  the  feeling.  The  soul  cannot  feel 
towards  Christ  as  God  if  it  regards  him  as  merely  a  man.  It 
cannot  feel  towards  him  as  a  sacrifice,  if  it  believes  he  died  sim- 
ply as  a  martyr.  In  short,  it  cannot  believe  what  it  knows  to  be 
a  lie,  or  apprehend  an  object  as  false  and  yet  feel  towards  it  as 
true.  Let  it  be  assumed  that  a  man  is  convinced  that  ability  is 
necessary  to  responsibility  ;  that  sin  cannot  be  imputed  to  the 

'  This  is  so  plain  a  matter  that  Professor  Tark  has  himself  given  utterance  to  the 
same  trutk  "Is  God,"  he  asks,  "the  author  of  coufasion;  in  his  word  reveahng  one 
doctrine  and  by  his  Spirit  persuading  his  people  to  reject  it  ?"  P.  5-14.  Surely  not ; 
and  therefore,  if  the  sanctified  heart,  i.  e.,  the  feelings  under  the  influence  of  the 
Sp/irit,  or,  to  use  our  author's  phraseology,  if  the  theology  of  feeling  pronounces  a 
doctrine  to  be  true,  notliing  but  a  sceptical  intellect  can  pronounce  it  to  bo  false. 


AND    THAT     OF    THE     FEELINGS.  561 

innocent  ;  that  Christ  did  not  satisfy  divine  justice,  then  no 
genuine  religious  feeHng  can  find  expression  in  such  forms  of 
speech.  Professor  Park  says,  on  this  principle  he  must  believe 
that  Grod  actually  came  from  Teman,  and  the  Holy  One  from 
Mount  Parau  ;  that  he  really  rode  upon  a  chariot,  &c.  This  in- 
dicates a  most  extraordinary  confusion  of  mind.  Is  there  no 
difference  between  the  figurative  expression  of  what  is  true  and 
the  assertion  of  what  is  false  ?  The  phrase  that  "  Grod  came 
from  Teman,"  or,  "  He  made  the  clouds  his  chariot,"  when  in- 
terpreted according  to  the  established  laws  of  language,  expresses 
a  truth.  The  phrases  "  Christ  took  upon  him  our  guilt  ;"  "  He 
satisfied  divine  justice,"  &c.,  &c.,  when  interpreted  by  the  same 
laws  express,  ^  our  author  thinks,  what  is  false.  Is  there  then 
no  difference  between  these  cases  ?  Professor  Park  evidently 
confounds  two  things  which  are  as  distinct  as  day  and  night ; 
viz.  :  a  metaphor  and  a  falsehood — a  figurative  expression  and  a 
doctrinal  untruth.  Because  the  one  is  allowable,  he  pleads  for 
the  other  also.  Because  I  may  express  the  truth  that  Christ  was 
a  sacrifice  by  calling  him  the  Lamb  of  God  who  bears  the  sin  of 
the  world — I  may,  in  solemn  acts  of  worship,  so  address  him 
without  belie^ang  in  his  sacrificial  death  at  all !  All  religious 
language  false  to  the  intellect  is  profane  to  the  feelings  and  a 
mockery  of  God.  That  such  is  the  dictate  of  Christian  conscious- 
ness is  plain  from  the  fact  that  the  Hymn  Book  or  Liturgy  of  no 
church  contains  doctrines  contrary  to  the  creed  of  such  church. 
We  challenge  Professor  Park  to  producSif  from  the  hymns  used 
by  Presbyterians  a  single  phrase  inconsistent  with  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession.  If  one  such  could  be  found,  its  inaccuracy  as 
an  expression  "of  dogmatic  truth"  would  be  universally  regarded 
as  a  sufiicient  reason  for  its  repudiation.  Men  may  no  more  sing 
falsehood  to  God,  than  speak  it  in  the  pulpit,  or  profess  it  in  a 
creed.  In  the  early  part  of  his  discourse,  our  author  says,  the 
intellect  does  not  originate  the  phrase  "  God,  the  mighty  maker, 
died.'**  This  he  attributes  to  the  feelings  as  a  passionate  expres- 
sion, designed  to  be  impressive  rather  than  intelligible.  This, 
therefore,  we  presume  he  would  adduce  as  an  example  of  doc- 
trinal inaccuracy  in  the  language  of  devotion.  A  moment's  re- 
flection, however,  is  sufficient  to  show  that  instead  of  this  phrase 
being  forced  on  the  intellect  by  the  feelings,  it  has  to  be  defend- 
ed by  the  intellect  at  the  bar  of  the  feelings.     The  latter  at  first 

36 


562      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

recoil  from  it.  It  is  not  until  its  strict  doctrinal  propriety  is  ap- 
prehended by  the  intelligence,  that  the  feelings  acquiesce  in  its 
use,  and  open  themselves  to  the  impression  of  the  awful  truth 
which  it  contains.  An  attempt  was  actually  made,  on  the  score 
of  taste,  to  exclude  that  phrase  from  our  hymn  book.  But  its 
restoration  was  demanded  by  the  public  sentiment  of  the  church, 
on  the  score  of  doctrinal  fidelity.  It  was  seen  to  be  of  importance 
to  assert  the  truth  that  he,  the  person  who  died  upon  the  cross, 
was  "  God,  the  mighty  Maker,  the  Lord  of  glory,  the  Prince  of 
Life,"  for  on  this  truth  depends  the  whole  value  of  his  death. 
In  all  cases,  therefore,  we  maintain  that  the  religious  feelings 
demand  truth  and  repudiate  falsehood.  They  cannot  express 
themselves  under  forms  which  the  intelligence  rejects,  for  those 
feelings  themselves  are  the  intelligence  in  a  certain  state,  and  not 
some  distinct  percipient  agent. 

Here,  as  before  remarked,  is  the  radical  error  of  our  author's 
theory.  It  supposes  in  fact  two  conflicting  intelligences  in  man  ; 
the  one  seeing  a  thing  to  be  true,  and  the  other  seeing  it  to  be 
false,  and  yet  both  seeing  correctly  from  its  own  position -and  for 
its  own  object.  We  have  endeavored  to  show  that  there  is  no 
such  dualism  in  the  soul,  and  therefore  no  foundation  for  two 
such  systems  of  conflicting  theologies  as  this  theory  supposes. 
The  familiar  fact  that  men  sometimes  regard  a  doctrine  as  true 
and  sometimes  look  uj^on  it  as  false  ;  that  they  have  conflicting 
judgments,  and  give  utterances  to  inconsistent  declarations,  we 
maintain  is  no  proof  of  a  theology  of  the  feelings  as  distinct  from 
that  of  the  intellect.  These  vacillating  judgments  are  really 
contradictory  apprehensions  of  the  intellect,  one  of  which  must 
be  false,  and  therefore  to  attribute  them  to  the  sacred  writers, 
under  the  plea  that  they  sometimes  spoke  to  be  impressive,  and 
sometimes  to  be  intelligible,  is  to  destroy  their  authority  ;  and 
to  use  in  worship  expressions  which  the  intellect  pronounces  doc- 
trinally  untrue,  is  repudiated  by  the  whole  Christian  church  as 
profane.  If  we  wish  to  get  the  real  faith  of  a  people,  that  faith 
on  which  they  live,  in  which  intellect  and  heart  alike  acquiesce, 
go  to  their  hymns  ^nd  forms  of  devotion.  There  they  are  sincere. 
There  they  speak  what  they  know  to  be  true  ;  and  there  conse- 
quently their  true  creed  is  to  be  found. 

Having  endeavored  to  show  that  Professor  Park  finds  no  foun- 
dation for  his  theory  in  the  constitution  of  our  nature,  or  in  those 


AND    THAT    OF    THE     FEELINGS.  563 

familiar  changes  of  views  and  feelings,  in  varying  states  of  mind, 
of  which  all  are  conscious,  we  wish  to  say  further,  that  this  theory 
finds  no  support  in  the  different  modes  in  which  the  mind  looks 
on  truth  for  different  purposes.  Sometimes  a  given  proposition, 
or  the  truth  which  it  contains,  is  contemplated  merely  in  its  rela- 
tion to  the  reason.  Its  import,  its  verity,  its  consistency  with  the 
standard  of  judgment,  is  all  that  the  mind  regards.  Sometimes 
it  contemplates  the  logical  relations  of  that  with  other  truths  ; 
and  sometimes  it  is  the  moral  excellence  of  truth  which  is  the 
object  of  attention.  When  the  mind  addresses  itself  to  the  con- 
templation of  truth,  its  posture  and  its  subjective  state  will  vary 
according  to  the  object  it  has  in  view.  But  neither  the  truth  it- 
self nor  the  apprehension  of  it  as  truth  suffers  any  change.  It  is 
not  seen  now  as  true,  and  now^  as  false  ;  or  true  to  the  feelings 
and  false  to  tlie  reason,  but  one  and  the  same  truth  is  viewed  for 
different  purposes.  When,  for  example,  we  open  the  Bible  and 
turn  to  any  particular  passage,  we  may  examine  it  to  ascertain  its 
meaning  ;  or  having  determined  its  import,  we  may  contemplate 
the  truth  it  contains  in  its  moral  aspects  and  in  its  relation  to 
ourselves.  These  are  different  mental  operations,  and  the  state 
of  mind  which  they  suppose  or  induce  must  of  course  be  differ- 
ent. Every  Christian  is  familiar  with  this  fact.  He  knows  what 
it  is  to  contemplate  the  divine  perfections,  for  the  purpose  of 
understanding  them,  and  to  meditate  on  them  to  appreciate  their 
excellence  and  feel  their  power.  He  sometimes  is  called  on  to 
form  a  clear  idea  of  what  the  Bible  teaches  of  the  constitution 
of  Christ's  person,  or  the  nature  of  his  work ;  but  much  more 
frequently  his  mind  turns  towards  the  Son  of  God  clothed  in  our 
nature,  to  behold  his  glory,  to  rejoice  in  his  divine  excellence,  and 
amazing  condescension  and  love.  In  all  such  cases,  the  intellect- 
ual apprehension  is  the  same.  It  is  the  very  truth  and  the  very 
same  form  of  that  truth  which  is  arrived  at,  by  a  careful  exegesis, 
which  is  the  subject  of  devout  meditation.  A  Christian  does  not 
understand  the  Bible  in  one  way  when  he  reads  it  as  a  critic,  and 
in  another  w^ay  when  he  reads  for  spiritual  edification.  His 
thoughts  of  God  and  Christ  when  endeavoring  to  discover  the 
truth  revealed  concerning  them,  are  the  same  as  when  he  is  en- 
gaged in  acts  of  worship.  Nay  more,  the  clearer  and  more 
extended  this  speculative  knowledge,  the  brighter  and  more  un- 
disturbed is  the  spiritual  vision,  other  things  being  equal.     One 


/ 


564      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

man  may  indeed  be  a  better  theologian  but  a  less  devout  Chris- 
tian than  another  ;  but  the  devout  Christian  is  only  the  more 
devout  with  every  increase  in  the  clearness  and  consistency  of  his 
intellectual  apprehensions.  It  may  be  further  admitted,  that  the 
language  of  speculation  is  different  from  the  language  of  emotion  ; 
that  the  terms  emjjloyed  in  defining  a  theological  truth,  are  not 
always  those  which  would  be  naturally  employed  in  setting  forth 
that  truth  as  the  object  of  the  affections.  But  these  representa- 
tions are  always  consistent.  All  hymns  to  Christ  express  pre- 
cisely the  same  doctrine  concerning  his  person,  that  is  found  in 
the  Athanasian  creed.  The  same  remarks  may  be  made  in  refer- 
ence to  all  departments  of  theology.  The  doctrines  concerning 
the  condition  of  men  by  nature  ;  of  their  relation  to  Adam  ;  of 
their  redemption  through  Christ  ;  of  the  work  of  God's  Spirit  ; 
may  be  examined  either  to  be  understood  or  to  be  felt.  But  in 
every  case  it  is  the  truth  as  understood  that  is  felt.  The  under- 
standing does  not  take  one  view  and  the  feelings  a  different ;  the 
former  does  not  pronounce  for  plenary  power,  and  the  latter  for 
helplessness  ;  the  one  does  not  assert  that  all  sin  consists  in  acts, 
and  the  other  affirm  the  sinfulness  of  the  heart  ;  the  one  does  not 
look  on  Christ  as  merely  teaching  by  his  death  that  sin  is  an 
evil,  and  the  other  behold  him  as  bearing  our  sins  in  his  own 
body  on  the  tree. 

This  subject  admits  of  abundant  illustration,  did  our  limits 
allow  of  a  protracted  discussion.  A  man  may  look  over  a  tract 
of  country  and  his  inward  state  will  vary  with  his  object.  He 
may  contemplate  it  in  reference  to  its  agricultural  advantages  ; 
or  in  regard  to  its  topography,  or  its  geological  formation,  or  he 
may  view  it  as  a  landscape.  Another  may  gaze  on  a  picture,  or 
on  any  other  work  of  art,  as  a  critic,  to  ascertain  the  sources  of 
the  effect  produced,  or  simply  to  enjoy  it  as  an  object  of  beauty. 
He  may  listen  to  a  strain  of  music  to  note  the  varying  intervals, 
the  succession  of  chords  and  the  like,  or  merely  to  receive  the 
pleasurable  impression  of  the  sounds.  In  all  these  cases  the  ob- 
ject contemplated  is  the  same — the  intellectual  apprehension  is 
the  same,  and  though  the  state  of  mind  varies  as  the  design  of 
the  observer  varies,  and  though  the  terms  which  he  employs  as  an 
agriculturahst,  or  a  geologist,  or  a  critic,  may  differ  from  those 
which  he  uses  to  give  expression  to  his  emotions,  there  can  be  no 
contrariety.     He  cannot  apprehend  the  same  region  to  be  b^ren 


AND    THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS.  565 

and  yet  fertile,  the  same  picture  to  be  beautiful  and  yet  the  re- 
verse, the  same  strain  to  be  melodious  and  yet  discordant.  His 
intellect  cannot  make  one  report,  and  his  feelings  an  opposite  one. 
It  is  thus  Vv^ith  regard  to  divine  truth.  It  may  be  viewed  in  order 
to  be-  understood;  or  in  order  to  be  felt.  We  may  come  to  the 
contemplation  of  it  as  theologians  or  as  Christians,  and  our  inward 
state  will  vary  with  our  object,  but  there  will  be  no  contrariety 
in  our  apprehensions  or  in  their  expression. 

The  points  of  difference  between  the  views  expressed  in  the 
foregoing  paragraph,  and  the  theory  of  this  discourse  are  two. 
First,  Professor  Park  makes  the  perceptions  themselves  to  vary, 
so  that  what  ajjpears  true  to  the  feelings  is  apprehended  as  false 
by  the  intellect.  Secondly,  he  says  that  the  expression  of  these 
different  perceptions  is,  or  may  be,  contradictory.  Hence  there 
may  be,  and  actually  are,  two  theologies,  the  one  affirming,  the 
other  denying  ;  the  one  teaching  sound  old  school  orthodoxy,  the 
other,  any  form  of  new  school  divinity  that  suits  the  reigning 
fashion  in  philosophy.  We  maintain  on  the  contrary  that  there 
is  perfect  consistency  between  the  intellectual  apprehension  of 
truth  when  viewed  in  order  to  be  understood  and  when  contem- 
plated in  order  to  be  felt  ;  and  that  however  different  the  lan- 
guage employed  on  these  different  occasions,  there  can  be  no  con- 
tradiction. There  cannot  therefore  be  two  conflicting  theologies  ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  the  theology  of  the  feeling  is  the  theology 
of  the  intellect  in  all  its  accuracy  of  thought  and  expression. 

There  is  still  another  view  of  this  subject,  so  extensive  and 
important  that  we  hesitate  even  to  allude  to  it  in  the  conclusion 
of  this  article.  What  is  the  true  relation  between  feeling  and 
knowledge  in  matters  of  religion  ?  The  discussion  of  this  ques- 
tion might  properly  be  made  to  cover  the  whole  ground  embraced 
in  this  discourse.  This  is  really  the  point  which  Professor  Park's 
subject  called  upon  him  to  elucidate,  but  which  he  has  only  inci- 
dentally referred  to.  We  have  already  endeavored  to  show  that 
this  relation  is  not  such  as  his  theory  assumes.  It  does  not 
admit  of  contradiction  between  the  two.  There  cannot  be  two 
conflicting  theologies,  one  of  the  feeling  and  another  of  the  intel- 
lect. But  if  these  principles  cannot  be  in  conflict,  what  is  the 
relation  between  them  ?  Are  they  independent,  as  rationalism 
supposes,  which  allows  feeling  no  place  in  determining  our  faith  ? 
Or  is  the  intellect  determmed  by  the  feelings,  so  that  the  prov- 


566  THE    THEOLOGY    OF     THE    INTELLECT 

iuce  of  the  former  is  only  to  act  as  the  interpreter  of  the  latter  ? 
Or  are  the  feelings  determined  by  the  intellect,  so  that  the  intel- 
lectual apprehension  decides  the  nature  of  the  affection  ?  These 
are  questions  upon  which  we  cannot  now  enter.  It  appears  very 
evident  to  us  that  neither  the  first  nor  the  second  of  the  views 
here  intimated  has  any  support  either  from  Scripture  or  experi- 
ence. The  intellect  and  feelings  are  not  independent,  nor  is  the 
former  the  mere  interpreter  of  the  latter.  This  is  becoming  a 
very  current  opinion,  and  has  been  adopted  in  all  its  length  from 
Schleiermacher  by  Morell.  Knowledge,  or  truth,  objectively  re- 
vealed, is,  according  to  this  theory,  of  very  subordinate  import- 
ance. We  have  certain  religious  feelings :  to  develope  the  contents 
of  those  feelings,  is  the  province  of  the  intelligence,  so  that 
theology  is  but  the  intellectual  forms  in  which  the  religious  con- 
sciousness expresses  itself.  The  standard  of  truth  is,  therefore, 
nothing  objective,  but  this  inward  feeling.  Any  doctrine  which 
can  be  shown  to  be  the  legitimate  expression  of  an  innate  re- 
ligious feeling  is  true — and  any  which  is  assumed  to  have  a  dif- 
ferent origin,  or  to  be  foreign  to  the  religious  conciousness,  is  to 
be  rejected. 

What  the  Scriptures  teach  on  this  subject  is,  as  it  seems  to 
us,  in  few  words,  simply  this.  In  the  first  place,  agreeably  to 
what  has  already  been  said,  the  Bible  never  recognizes  that  broad 
distinction  between  the  intellect  and  the  feelings  which  is  so 
often  made  by  metaphysicians.  It  regards  the  soul  as  a  per- 
ceiving and  feeling  individual  subsistence,  whose  cognitions  and 
affections  are  not  exercises  of  distinct  faculties,  but  complex 
states  of  one  and  the  same  subject.  It  never  predicates  dejjravity 
or  holiness  of  the  feelings  as  distinct  from  the  intelligence,  or 
of  the  latter  as  distinct  from  the  former.  The  moral  state  of  the 
soul  is  always  represented  as  affecting  its  cognitions  as  well  as  its 
affections.  In  popular  language,  the  understanding  is  darkened 
as  well  as  the  heart  depraved^  In  the  second  place,  the  Scrip- 
tures as  clearly  teach  that  holiness  is  necessary  to  the  perception 
of  hohness.  In  other  words,  that  the  things  of  the  Spirit  must 
be  spiritually  discerned ;  that  the  unrenewed  have  not  this  dis- 
cernment, and  therefore,  they  cannot  know  the  things  which  are 
freely  given  to  us  of  God,  i.  e.,  the  things  which  he  has  gracious- 
ly revealed  in  this  word.  They  may  have  that  apprehension  of 
them  which  an  uncultivated  ear  has  of  complicated  musical 


AND    THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS,  567 

sounds,  or  an  untutored  eye  of  a  work  of  art.  Much  in  the  ob- 
ject is  perceived,  but  much  is  not  discerned,  and  that  which  re- 
mains unseen,  is  precisely  that  which  gives  to  these  objects  their 
peculiar  excellence  and  power.  Thirdly,  the  Bible  further  teach- 
es, that  no  mere  change  of  the  feelings  is  adequate  to  secure  this 
spiritual  discernment  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  in  the  order  of  na- 
ture, and  of  experience,  the  discernment  precedes  the  change  of 
the  affections,  just  as  the  perception  of  beauty  precedes  the  an- 
swering aesthetic  emotion.  The  eyes  must  be  opened  in  order  to 
see  wondrous  things  out  of  the  law  of  God.  The  glory  of  God, 
as  it  shines  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,  must  be  revealed,  before 
the  corresponding  affections  of  admiration,  love,  and  confidence 
rise  in  the  heart.  This  illumination  is  represented  as  the  pecu- 
liar work  of  the  Spirit.  The  knowledge  consequent  on  this  il- 
lumination is  declared  to  be  eternal  life.  It  is  the  highest  form 
of  the  activity  of  the  soul.  It  is  the  vision  of  God  and  of  the 
things  of  God,  now  seen  indeed  as  through  a  glass  darkly.  This 
knowledge  is  the  intuition  not  merely  of  the  truth,  but  also  of 
the  excellence  of  spiritual  objects.  It  is  common  to  all  the  people 
of  God,  given  to  each  in  his  measure,  but  producing  in  all  a  con- 
viction and  love  of  the  same  great  truths. 

If  this  be  a  correct  exhibition  of  Scriptural  teaching  on  this 
subject,  it  follows  first,  that  the  feelings  are  not  independent  of 
the  intellect,  or  the  intellect  of  the  feelings,  so  that  the  one  may 
be  unholy  and  the  other  indifferent ;  or  so  that  the  one  is  unin- 
fluenced-by  the  other.  It  must  also  follow  that  the  feelings  do 
not  determine  the  intelligence,  as  though  the  latter  in  matters 
of  religion  was  the  mere  exponent  of  the  former.  The  truth  is 
not  given  in  the  feelings  and  discovered  and  unfolded  by  the  in- 
tellect. The  truth  is  objectively  presented  in  the  word  ;  and  is 
by  the  Spirit  revealed  in  its  excellence  to  the  intelligence,  and 
thus  the  feelings  are  produced  as  necessary  attributes,  or  adjuncts 
of  spiritual  cognition.  This  is  not  "  the  light  system."  We  do 
not  hold  that  the  heart  is  changed  by  the  mere  objective  pre- 
sentation of  the  truth.  The  intellect  and  heart  are  not  two  dis- 
tinct fecultics  to  be  separately  affected  or  separately  renewed. 
There  is  a  divine  operation  of  which  the  whole  soul  is  the  subject. 
The  consequence  of  the  change  thus  effected  is  the  intuition  of 
the  truth  and  glory  of  the  things  of  God.  If  this  representation 
be  correct,  there  must  be  the  most  perfect  harmony  between  the 


568  THE     THEOLOGY     OF     THE    INTELLECT 

feelings  and  the  intellect ;  tliey  cannot  see  with  different  eyes,  or 
utter  discordant  language.  What  is  true  to  the  one,  must  be 
true  to  the  other  ;  what  is  good  in  the  estimation  of  the  one, 
must  be  good  also  to  the  other.  Language  which  satisfies  the 
reason  in  the  expression  of  truth,  must  convey  the  precise  idea 
which  is  embraced  in  the  glowing  cognition  which  constitutes 
religious  feeling ;  and  all  the  utterances  of  emotion  must  justify 
themselves  at  the  bar  of  the  intellect,  as  expressing  truth  before 
they  can  be  sanctioned  as  vehicles  of  the  religious  affections.  The 
relation  then  between  feeling  and  knowledge,  as  assumed  in 
Scripture  and  proved  by  experience,  is  utterly  inconsistent  with 
the  theory  of  this  discourse,  which  represents  them  in  perpetual 
conflict  ;  the  one  affirming  our  nature  to  be  sinful,  the  other  de- 
nying it  ;  the  one  teaching  the  doctrine  of  inability,  the  other 
that  of  plenary  power  ;  the  one  craving  a  real  vicarious  punish- 
ment of  sin,  the  other  teaching  that  a  symbolical  atonement  is 
all  that  is  needed  ;  the  one  pouring  forth  its  fervent  misconcep- 
tions in  acts  of  devotion,  and  the  other  whispering,  all  that  must 
be  taken  cum  grano  sails. 

We  have  now  endeavored  to  show  that  there  is  no  foundation 
for  Professor  Park's  tlieorj'  in  the  use  of  figurative  language  as 
the  expression  of  emotion  ;  nor  in  those  conflicting  judgments 
which  the  mind  forms  of  truth  in  its  different  conditions  ;  nor  in 
the  different  states  of  mind  consequent  on  contem^Dlation  of  truth 
for  different  objects  ;  nor  in  what  the  Scriptures  and  experience 
teach  concerning  the  relation  between  the  feelings  and  intellect. 
We  have  further  endeavored  to  show  that  this  theory  is  de- 
structive of  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  because  it  attributes  to 
the  sacred  writers  conflicting  and  irreconcilable  representations. 
Even  should  we  admit  that  the  feehngs  and  the  intellect  have 
different  apprehensions  and  adopt  different  modes  of  expression, 
yet  as  the  feelings  of  the  sacred  writers  were  excited,  as  well  as 
their  cognitions  determined,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  two  must 
be  in  perfect  harmony.  In  unrenewed,  or  imperfectly  sanctified, 
uninspired  men,  there  might  be,  on  the  hypothesis  assumed,  this 
conflict  between  feeling  and  knowledge,  but  to  attribute  such 
contradictions  to  the  Scriptures  is  to  deny  their  inspiration.  Be- 
sides this,  the  practical  operation  of  a  theory  which  supposes  that 
so  large  a  part  of  the  Bible  is  to  be  set  aside  as  inexact,  because 
the   language  of  passion,  must  be  to  subject  its  teachings  to 


AND    THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS.  569 

the  opinion  and  prejudices  of  the  reader.  No  adequate  criteria 
are  given  for  discriminating  between  the  language  of  feeling  and 
that  of  the  intellect.  Every  one  is  left  to  his  own  discretion  in 
making  the  distinction,  and  the  use  of  this  discretion,  regulated 
by  no  fixed  rules  of  language,  is  of  course  determined  'by  caprice 
or  taste. 

But  even  if  our  objections  to  the  theory  of  this  discourse  be 
deemed  unsound,  the  arbitrary  application  which  the  author 
makes  of  his  prkiciples  would  be  enough  to  condemn  them.  We 
have  seen  that  he  attributes  to  the  feeling  the  most  abstract 
propositions  of  scientific  theology,  that  he  does  not  discriminate 
between  mere  figurative  language  and  the  language  of  emo- 
tion ;  that  he  adopts  or  rejects  the  representations  of  the  Bible 
at  pleasure,  or  as  they  happen  to  coincide  with,  or  contradict  his 
preconceived  opinions.  That  a  sentence  of  condemnation  passed 
on  all  men  for  the  sin  of  one  man  ;  that  men  are  by  nature  the 
children  of  wrath  ;  that  without  Christ  we  can  do  nothing  ;  that 
he  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law  by  being  made  a 
curse  for  us  ;  that  men  are  not  merely  pardoned,  but  justified  ; 
are  represented  as  bold  metaphors,  impressive,  but  not  intelligi- 
ble, true  to  the  feelings,  but  false  to  the  reason. 

It  will  be  a  matter  of  deep  regret  to  many  to  find  Professor 
Park,  with  his  captivating  talents  and  commanding  influence, 
arrayed  against  the  doctrines  repudiated  in  this  discourse  ;  and 
many  more  will  lament  that  he  should  have  prepared  a  weapon 
which  may  be  used  against  one  doctrine  as  easily  as  another. 
Our  consolation  is,  that  however  keen  may  be  the  edge,  or  bright 
the  polish  of  that  weapon,  it  has  so  little  substance,  it  must  be 
shivered  into  atoms  with  the  first  blow  it  strikes  against  those 
sturdy  trees  which  have  stood  for  ages  in  the  garden  of  the  Lord, 
and  whose  leaves  have  been  for  the  healing  of  the  nations. 


XVII- 

THE   THEOLOGY  OF   THE   INTELLECT 
AND    THAT   OF   THE   FEELINGS,^ 

ARTICLE  II. 

We  are  really  sorry  to  find  that  Professor  Park  has  been  so 
much  pained  by  our  review  of  his  Convention  Sermon.  His 
reply  evinces  a  great  deal  of  wounded  feeling.  The  transparent 
vail  which  he  has  thrown  over  his  acerbites,  only  renders  them 
the  more  noticeable.  A  homely  face  may  pass  in  a  crowd  with- 
out attracting  much  attention  ;  but  if  its  unfortunate  owner 
attempt  to  conceal  it  by  a  gauze  mask,  every  eye  will  be  turned 
upon  him.  He  had  better  put  the  mask  in  his  pocket,  and  let 
his  face  pass  for  what  it  is.  Some  allowance  must  be  made  for 
our  author.  When  a  man  delivers  a  discourse  with  great  eclat, 
it  must,  we  presume,  be  very  painful  to  find  that  the  reading 
public  does  not  confirm  the  verdict  of  the  admiring  audience. 
This  is  a  very  common  occurrence.  Instead,  however,  of  being 
satisfied  with  the  obvious  solution  of  this  familiar  fact,  the 
author,  if  a  politician,  is  very  apt  to  attribute  such  unfavorable 
judgment  to  party  spirit,  and  if  a  preacher,  to  theological 
bigotiy.  We  are  the  more  disposed  to  be  charitable  in  the 
present  case,  because,  in  our  small  way,  we  have  had  a  some- 
what similar  experience.  We  wrote  a  review  which  we  intended 
to  make  a  model  of  candor  and  courtesy.  To  avoid  the  danger 
of  misrepresentation,  we  determined,  instead  of  giving  discon- 
nected extracts  of  the  discourse  reviewed,  to  present  a  full 
analysis  of  it,  as  far  as  possible  in  the  author's  own  words  ;  and 
to  guard  against   discourtesy,  we  resolved  to  abstain  from  all 

'  Remarks  on  the  Princeton  Review,  Vol.  XXII.  No.  IV.  Art.  VII.  By  Edwards 
A.  Park,  Abbot  Professor  in  Andover  Theological  Seminary.  Bibliotheca  Sacra, 
January,  1851.  Art.  IX. — Princeton  Review,  April,  1851. 


572      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

personal  remarks,  and  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  theory  under 
discussion.  We  flattered  ourselves  that  we  had  been  tolerably- 
successful  as  to  both  these  points.  Partial  friends  confirm  us  in 
our  self-complacency.  Even  opponents,  though  dissenting  from 
our  opinion  of  the  sermon,  acknowledged  the  courtesy  of  the 
review.  Judge  then  of  our  chagrin  to  learn  that  it  is  a  tissue  of 
misrepresentations,  filled  with  arguments  ad  captandum  vulgus 
and  ad  invidiam,  unblushing  in  its  misstatements,'  violating 
not  only  the  rules  of  logic,  but  the  canons  of  fair  criticism,  and 
even  the  laws  of  morals,  the  offspring  of  theological  bigotry  and 
sectional  jealousy,  &c.,  &c.  All  this  may  be  accounted  for  in 
various  ways,  except  so  far  as  the  imputation  of  unworthy 
motives  is  concerned.  That  we  are  at  a  loss  to  explain.  Does 
not  Professor  Park  know  in  his  heart  that  it  would  be  a  matter 
of  devout  thanksgiving  to  all  Old-school  men  to  be  assured  that 
their  doctrines  were  taught  at  Andover  ?  Does  he  suppose 
there  is  a  man  among  them  capable,  from  motives  conceivable  or 
inconceivable,  of  wishing  that  error  should  be  there  inculcated  ? 
If  he  can  cherish  such  suspicions,  he  is  of  all  Christian  men  the 
most  to  be  pitied. 

Having  failed  so  entirely  to  understand  the  Sermon,  we  shall 
not  be  presumptuous  enough  to  pretend  to  understand  the 
Keply.  It  is  not  our  purpose,  therefore,  to  review  it  in  detail. 
We  must  let  it  pass  and  produce  its  legitimate  effect,  whatever 
that  may  be.  We  take  a  deep  interest,  however,  in  the  main 
point  at  issue,  which  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  this  :  Is  that 
system  of  doctrine  embodied  in  the  creeds  of  the  Lutheran  and 
Reformed  Churches,  in  its  substantial  and  distinctive  features, 
true  as  to  its  form  as  well  as  to  its  substance  ?  Are  the  propo- 
sitions therein  contained  true  as  doctrines,  or  are  they  merely 
intense  expressions,  true  not  in  the  mode  in  which  they  are 
there  presented,  but  only  in  a  vague,  loose  sense,  which  the 
intellect  would  express  in  a  very  different  form  ?  Are  these 
creeds  to  be  understood  as  they  mean,  and  do  they  mean  what 
they  say,  or  is  allowance  to  be  made  for  their  freedom,  abate- 
ment of  their  force,  and  their  terms  to  be  considered  antiquated 
and  their  spirit  only  as  still  in  force  ?  For  example,  when  these 
creeds  speak  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  is  that  to  be  con- 

'  Professor  Park  says  repeatedly  his  reviewer  does  not  blush  to  say  this,  and  does 
not  blush  to  say  that. 


AND     THAT    OF     THE    FEELINGS.  573 

sidered  as  only  an  intense  form  of  expressing  "  the  definite  idea, 
that  we  are  exposed  to  evil  in  consequence  of  his  sin.'"  This  is 
surely  a  question  of  great  importance. 

From  an  early  period  in  the  histoiy  of  the  church,  there  have 
heen  two  great  systems  of  doctrine  in  perpetual  conflict.  The 
one  begins  with  God,  the  other  with  man.  The  one  has  for  its 
object  the  vindication  of  the  divine  supremacy  and  sovereignty 
in  the  salvation  of  men,;  the  other  has  for  its  characteristic  aim 
the  assertion  of  the  rights  of  human  nature.      It  is  specially 

'  Sermon,  p.  535.  In  the  following  article  the  references  to  Professor  Park's 
Sermon  are  to  the  edition  of  it  contained  in  the  Bib.  Sacra  for  July,  1850 ;  and  those 
to  his  Remarks  on  the  Princeton  Review  are  to  the  Bib.  Sacra  for  January,  1851. 
That  the  point  at  issue  is  what  is  stated  in  the  text  will  be  made  more  apparent  in 
the  sequel;  for  the  present  it  maybe  sufficient  to  refer  to  the  following  passages. 
In  giving  his  reasons  for  the  title  of  the  sermon,  Professor  Park  says :  "  Secondly, 
the  title  was  selected  as  a  deferential  and  charitable  one.  The  representations 
which  are  classified  under  the  theology  of  feeling  are  often  sanctioned  as  '  the  true 
theology,'  by  the  men  who  delight  most  in  employing  them.  "What  the  sermon 
would  characterize  as  images,  illustrations,  and  intense  expressions,  these  men  .call 
doctrines."  "We  call  one  system  of  theology  'rational'  or  'liberal,'  simply  because 
it  is  so  called  by  its  advocates ;  much  more  then  may  we  designate  by  the  phrase 
'  emotive  theology.'  those  representations  which  are  so  tenaciously  defended  by  mul- 
titudes as  truth  fitted  both  for  the  feeling  and  the  judgment.''  Remarks,  p.  140. 

"  A  creed,  if  true  to  its  original  end,  should  be  in  sober  prose,  should  be  under- 
stood as  it  means,  and  mean  what  it  says,  should  be  drawn  out  with  a  discriminat- 
ing, balancing  judgment,  so  as  to  need  no  allow-ance  for  its  freedom,  no  abatement 
of  its  force,  and  should  not  be  expressed  in  antiquated  terms,  lest  men  regard  its 
spirit  as  likewise  obsolete.  It  belongs  to  the  province  of  the  analyzing,  comparing, 
reasoning  intellect ;  and  if  it  leave  this  province  for  the  sake  of  intermingling  the 
phrases  of  an  impassioned  heart,  it  confuses  the  soul,  it  awakens  the  fancy  and  the 
teelings  to  disturb  the  judgment,  it  sets  a  believer  at  variance  with  himself  by  per- 
plexing his  reason  with  metaphors  and  his  imagination  with  logic ;  it  raises  feuds  in 
the  church  by  crossing  the  temperaments  of  men,  and  taxing  one  party  to  demon- 
strate similes,  another  to  feel  inspired  by  abstractions.  Hence  the  logomachy 
which  has  always  characterized  the  defence  of  such  creeds.  The  intellect,  no  less 
than  the  heart,  behig  out  of  its  clement,  wanders  through  dry  places,  seeking  rest 
and  finding  none.  Men  are  thus  made  uneasy  with  themselves  and  therefore  acri- 
monious against  each  other ;  the  imaginative  zealot  does  not  understand  the  pliilo- 
aopliical  explanation,  and  the  philosopher  does  not  sympatliize  with  the  imaginative 
style  of  the  sj-'mbol;  and  as  they  misunderstand  each  other,  they  feel  their  weakness, 
and  'to  be  weak  is  to  bo  miserable,' and  misery  not  only  loves  but  also  makes 
company,  and  thus  they  sink  their  controversy  into  a  contention  and  their  dispute 
into  a  quarrel ;  nor  will  they  ever  find  peace  until  they  confine  their  intellect  to  its 
rightful  sphere,  and  understand  it  according  to  what  it  says,  and  their  feeling  to  its 
province  and  interpret  its  language  according  to  what  it  means,  rendering  unto 
poetry  the  things  that  are  designed  for  poetry,  and  unto  prose  what  belongs  to 
pro.se."    Sermon,  p.  554. 


574      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

solicitous  that  nothing  should  he  held  to  be  true,  which  cannot 
be  philosophically  reconciled  with  the  liberty  and  ability  of  man. 
It  starts  with  a  theory  of  free  agency  and  of  the  nature  of  sin,  to 
which  all  the  anthropological  doctrines  of  the  Bible  must  be 
made  to  conform."  Its  great  principles  are,  first,  that  "  all  sin 
consists  in  sinning  ;  that  there  can  be  no  moral  character  but  in 
moral  acts  ;  secondly,  that  the  power  to  the  contrary  is  essential 
to  free  agency  ;  that  a  free  agent  may  always  act  contrary  to 
any  influence,  not  destructive  of  his  freedom,  which  can  be 
brought  to  bear  upon  liim  ;  thirdly,  that  ability  limits  responsi- 
bility ;  that  men  are  responsible  only  so  far  as  they  have  adequate 
power  to  do  what  is  required  of  them,  or  that  they  are  responsi- 
ble for  nothing  not  under  the  control  of  the  will.'     From  these 

'  We  give  from  authoritative  symbols  and  vsritings  a  fevr  extracts  conflrmicg  the 
account  given  in  the  text  of  the  two  systems  referred  to. 

Our  Relation  to  Adam. 

Apology  of  the  Covfession  of  the  Remonstrants,  p.  84.  Fatentur  Remonstrantes, 
peccatum  Adami  a  Deo  imputatum  diei  posse  posteris  ejus,  quatenus  Deus  posteros 
Adami  eidem  malo,  eui  Adamus  per  peccatum  obnoxium  se  reddidit,  obnoxios  nasci 
voluit,  sive  quatenus  Deus  malum,  quod  in  poenam  Adamo  inflictam  fuerat,  in 
posteros  ejus  dimanare  et  transire  permisit.  At  nihil  cogit  eos  dicere,  peccatum 
Adami  posteris  ejus  sic  fuisse  a  Deo  imputatum,  quasi  Deus  posteros  Adami  revera 
censuisset  ejusdem  cum  Adamo  peccati  et  culp*,  quam  Adamus  commiserat,  reos. 

Limborch  Theol.  Christ.  3.  3.  8.  Quod  itaque  imputationem  peccati  Adami  attinet, 
qua  statuitur,  Deum  primum  Adami  et  Ev£e  peccatum  omnibus  ipsorum  posteris  ita 
imputasse,  ut  omnium  peccatum  sit  omnesque  in  Adamo  peccaverint  et  propterea 
mortis  ac  condemnationis  Eeternae  rei  facti  sint,  earn  impugnamus. 

Ibid.  3.  3.  19.     Dicimus,  Deum  innoxios  posteros  non  punire  ob  peccatum  Adami. 

Original  Sin. 

Apol.  Gonf.  Remonstr.  p.  84.  Peccatum  originale  nee  habeut  (Remonstrantes)  pro 
peccato  proprie  dicto,  quod  posteros  Adami  odio  Dei  dignos  faciat,  nee  pro  malo, 
quod  per  modum  proprie  dicta;  pcenas  ab  Adamo  in  posteros  dimanet,  sed  pro  malo, 
infirmitate,  vitio  aut  quocunque  tandem  aho  nomine  vocetur.  *  *  *  Peccatum 
autem  originis  non  esse  malum  culpa;  proprie  dictas,  quod  vocant,  ratio  manifesta 
arguit ;  malum  culpaj  non  est,  quia  nasci  plane  involuntarium  est,  ergo  et  nasci 
cum  hac  aut  ilia  labe,  infirmitate,  vitio  vel  malo.  *  *  *  Multo  minus  itaque 
fieri  potest,  ut  sit  culpa  simul  et  poena. 

Limborch  Theol.  Christ.  3.  4.  4.  Nullam  scriptura  in  infantibus  corruptionem  esse 
docet,  quae  vere  ac  proprie  sit  peccatum.  4.  5.  Absurdum  est  statuere.  Deum 
homines  punivisse  corruptione  tali,  quae  vere  ac  proprie  dictum  est  peccatum,  et  ex 
qua  omnia  actualia  poccata  tanquam  ex  fonte  necessario  scaturiunt,  et  deinde  propter 
illam  corruptionem  homines  denuo  punire  poena  inferni. 

Ibid.  4.  "7.  Nullum  peccatum  posna  dignum  est  involuntarium,  quia  nihil  magis 
debet  esse  voluntarium,  quam  q\iod  liominem  posn.T3  ot  quidcm  gravissimffi,  ffiternse 


AND    THAT    OF     THE    FEELINGS.  575 

principles  it  follows  that  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  "  original 
righteousness,"  that  is,  a  righteousness  in  which  man  was  origin- 
ally created.  Whatever  moral  character  he  had  must  have  been 
the  result  of  his  own  acts.     Neither  can  there  be  any  "  original 

nempe  et  summorum  cruciatuum,  reum  facit.  Atqui  corruptio  originaria  est  in- 
voluntaria. 

Ibid.  3.  4.  1.  Inclinatio  ilia  (ad  peccandum)  proprie  dictum  peccatum  non  est  aut 
peccati  habitus  ab  Adamo  ia  ipsos  propagatus,  sed  naturalis  tantum  inclinatio 
habendi  id,  quod  carni  gratum  est. 

Pelagius  apud  August,  de  peccato  orig.  14.  Omne  bonum  ac  malum,  quo  vel 
laudabiles  vel  vituperabiles  sumus,  non  nobiscum  oritur,  sed  agitur :  capaces  enim 
utriizsque  rei,  non  pleni  nascimur,  et  ut  sine  virtute,  ita  et  sine  vitio  procreamur ; 
atque  ante  actionem  propriae  voluntatis  id  solum  in  homine  est,  quod  Deus  condidit. 
I^ist.  ad  Demetr.  c.  3.  Volens  namque  Deus  rationabilem  voluntarii  boni  munere 
et  liberi  arbitrii  potestate  donare,  utriusque  partis  possibilitatem  homini  inserendo 
proprium  ejus  fecit,  esse  quod  velit:  ut  boni  ac  mali  capax,  naturaliter  utrumque 
posset,  et  ad  alterutrum  voluntatem  deflecteret.  A.  def.  2.  Iterum  quasrcndum  est, 
peccatum  voluntatis  an  necessitatis  est?  Si  necessitatis  est,  peccatum  non  est,  si 
voluntatis,  vitari  potest.  5.  Iterum  quasrendum  est,  utrumne  deboat  homo  sine 
peccato  esse.  Procul  dubio  debet.  Si  debet,  potest :  si  non  potest,  ergo  non  debet. 
Et  si  non  debet  homo  esse  sine  peccato,  debet  ergo  cum  peccato  esse ;  et  jam  pec- 
catum non  erit,  si  illud  deberi  constiteret. 

The  maxim.  Si  debet,  potest,  has  become  immortal.  It  is  the  ground-work  of  the 
whole  system  to  which  it  belongs,  and  is  constantly  repeated  by  its  advocates,  whe- 
ther philosophers  or  theologians.  In  reference  to  Kant's  Ich  Soil,  also  kann  ich, 
Muller  pithily  answers :  Ich  sollte  freilich  kiinnen,  aher  Ich  kann  nicht.  Muller's 
Lehre  von  der  Siinde.  Band  ii.  s.  116. 

Dr.  Beecher,  in  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  1828,  held  the  following  language: 
"The  Reformers  with  one  accord  taught  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  imputed  to  all 
his  posterity,  and  that  a  corrupt  nature  descends  from  him  to  every  one  of  his  pos- 
terity, in  consequence  of  which  infants  are  unholy,  unfit  for  heaven  and  justly  ex- 
posed to  future  punishment." — "Our  Puritan  fathers  adhered  to  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin  as  consisting  in  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  in  a  hereditary 
depravity;  and  this  continued  to  be  the  received  doctrine  of  the  churches  of  New 
England,  until  after  the  time  of  Edwards.  He  adopted  the  views  of  the  Reformers 
on  the  subject  of  original  sin  and  a  depraved  nature  transmitted  by  descent.  But 
after  him  this  mode  of  stating  the  subject  was  gradually  changed,  until  long  since, 
the  prevailing  doctrine  in  New  England  (?)  has  been,  that  men  are  not  guilty  of 
Adam's  sin,  and  that  depravity  is  not  of  the  substance  of  the  soul,  nor  an  inherent 
physical  quality,  but  is  wholly  voluntary,  and  consists  in  a  transgression  of  the  law 
in  such  cu-cumstances  as  constitute  responsibility  and  desert  of  punishment" 

Work  of  Christ  and  Justification. 
The  objections  of  Socinians  against  the  Church  doctrine  of  satisfaction,  says 
Bretschneider,  led  Grotius  to  refer  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  to  the  justitia  Dei  rectoria. 
According  to  this  theory  he  says,  "The  satisfaction  consists  in  this,  Christ  properly 
endured  no  punishment,  but  innocent  in  himself  voluntarily  submitted  to  suffering 
and  death,  in  order  that  men  miglit  not  be  puuished,  and  that  God  was  satisfied 


576      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

sin,"  {.  e.  an  innate,  hereditary,  sinful  corruption  of  nature. 
Whatever  eftect  Adam's  apostasy  may  have  had  upon  himself  or 
on  his  posterity ;  whether  it  left  his  nature  uninjured,  and 
merely  changed  unfavorably  his  circumstances  ;  or  whether  our 
nature  was  thereby  deteriorated  so  as  to  be  prone  to  sin,  it  was 
not  itself  rendered  morally  corrupt  or  sinful.  Adam  was  in  no 
such  sense  the  head  and  representative  of  his  race,  that  his  sin  is 
the  ground  of  our  condemnation.  Every  man,  according  to  this 
system,  stands  his  probation  for  himself,  and  is  not  under  con- 
demnation until  he  voluntarily  transgresses  some  known  law,  for 
it  is  only  such  transgression  that  falls  under  the  category  of  sin. 
In  regeneration,  according  to  the  principles  above  stated,  there 
cannot  be  the  production  of  a  new  moral  nature,  principle  or 
disposition,  as  the  source  of  holy  exercises.  That  change  must 
consist  in  some  act  of  the  soul,  something  which  lies  within  the 
sphere  of  its  own  power,  some  act  of  the  will  or  some  change 
subject  to  the  will.  The  influence  by  which  regeneration  is 
effected,  must  be  something  which  can  be  effectually  resisted  in 
the  utmost  energy  of  its  operation.  This  being  the  case,  the 
sovereignty  of  God  in  the  salvation  of  men  must  of  necessity  be 
given  up. 

With  these  views  of  the  nature  and  liberty  of  man  is  con- 
nected a  corresponding  view  of  the  moral  government  of  God. 

with  this  atonement  made  to  his  law  or  government."  Systemat.  Entwickelung,  p. 
628. 

lAmhorch  Apol.  thes.  3.  2L  Sadsfactio  Christi  dicitnr,  qua  pro  nobis  poenas 
omnes  luit  peccatis  nostris  debitas,  easque  perferendo  et  eshauriendo  divinte  justitise 
satisfecit.  Vcrum  ilia  sententia  nullum  habet  in  scriptura  fundamentum.  Mors 
Christi  vocatur  sacrificiura  pro  peccato ;  atqui  sacrificia  non  sunt  solutiones  debitorum, 
neque  plenariie  pro  peccatis  satisfactionea ;  sed  illis  peractis  conceditur  gratuita  pec- 
cati  remissio. 

Gurcelleus  Rel.  Christ.  Instit.  5.  19.  16.  Non  ergo,  ut  putant,  satisfecit  Christus 
patiendo  omnes  poenas,  quas  peccatis  nostris  merueramus ;  nam  primo  istud  ad  sacri- 
ficii  ratiouem  non  pertinet,  sacrificia  enim  non  sunt  solutiones  debitorum;  secundo 
(^.hristus  non  est  passus  mortem  asternam,  quae  erat  poena  peccato  debita,  nam 
paucis  tantum  horis  in  cruce  pependit  et  tertia  die  resurrexit.  Imo  etiamsi  mortem 
ajternam  pertulisset,  non  videtur  satisfacere  potuisse  pro  omnibus  totius  mundi 
peccatis.  *  *  *  Quarto  ista  sententia  non  potest  consistere  cum  ilia  remissione 
gratuita  omnium  peccatorum,  quam  Deum  nobis  in  Christo  ex  immensa  sua  miscri- 
cordia  concedere,  sacras  litene  passim  doccnt. 

lUd.  7.  9.  6.  Nullibi  docet  scriptura,  justitiam  Christi  nobis  iraputari.  Et  id 
absurdum  est.  Nemo  enim  in  se  injustus  aliena  justitia  potest  esse  fonnaliter  justua, 
non  magis,  quam  aliena  albcdine  vEthiops  esse  albug. 


AND    THAT     OF     THE    FEELINGS.  577 

Sin  has  entered  tlie  world  because  it  could  not  be  prevented  in 
a  moral  system.  God  counteracts  and  restrains  it  by  every 
means  in  his  power  consistent  with  the  continuance  of  that  sys- 
tem. The  obstacle  to  its  extirpation  is  the  free-will  of  man  ;  and 
the  obstacle  to  its  forgiveness  is  the  license  which  would  thereby 
be  given  to  transgression.  As  God  governs  his  rational  crea- 
tures by  motives,  the  work  of  Christ  is  a  device  to  meet  both 
these  difficulties.  It  presents  a  powerful  motive  to  man  to  for- 
sake sin,  and  makes  such  an  exhibition  of  God's  displeasui'e 
against  sin,  as  answers  in  place  of  its  punishment  as  a  means  of 
moral  impression.  The  work  of  Christ  was  not  a  satisfaction  to 
law  and  justice  in  the  i)roper  sense  of  those  terms.  Justice  in 
God  is  simply  "  benevolence  guided  by  wisdom,"  The  accept- 
ance of  the  sinner  is  the  act  of  a  sovereign,  dispensing  with  the 
demands  of  the  law.  The  righteousness  of  Christ  is  not  im- 
puted to  believers,  but  as  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  occasion  of 
certain  evils  coming  on  his  race,  so  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
is  the  occasion  of  good  to  his  people. 

From  these  theoretical  views,  others  of  a  practical  nature 
necessarily  follow.  Conviction  of  sin  must  accommodate  itself 
to  the  theory  that  there  is  no  sin  but  in  the  voluntary  trans- 
gression of  known  law  ;  a  sense  of  helplessness  must  be  modified 
by  the  conviction  of  ability  to  repent  and  believe,  to  change  our 
own  heart  and  to  keep  all  God's  commands.  Faith  must  regard 
Christ's  work  as  a  governmental  display  of  certain  divine  attri- 
butes. Such  directions  as,  receive  Christ,  come  to  him,  trust  in 
him,  commit  the  keeping  of  the  soul  to  him,  naturally  give 
place  under  this  system  to  the  exhortation,  submit  to  God, 
determine  to  keep  his  commands,  make  choice  of  him  in  prefer- 
ence to  the  world.  The  view  which  this  system  presents  of  the 
plan  of  salvation,  of  the  relation  of  the  soul  to  Christ,  of  the 
nature  and  office  of  faith,  modifies  and  detei-mines  the  whole 
character  of  experimental  religion. 

The  system  antagonistic  to  the  one  just  described  has  for  its 
object  the  vindication  of  the  supremacy  of  God  in  the  whole 
work  of  man's  salvation,  both  because  he  is  in  fact  supreme, 
and  because  man  being  in  fact  utterly  ruined  and  helpless,  no 
method  of  recovery  which  does  not  so  regard  him  is  suited  to 
his  relation  to  God,  or  can  bo  made  to  satisfy  the  necessities  of 
his  nature.     This  system  does  not  exalt  a  theory  of  morals  or 

37 


578  THE    THEOLOGY     OF     THE    INTELLECT 

of  liberty  over  the  Scriptures,  as  a  rule  by  wliich  they  are  to  be 
interpreted.  It  accommodates  its  philosophy  to  the  facts  re- 
vealed in  the  divine  word.  As  the  Bible  plainly  teaches  that 
man  was  created  holy,  that  he  is  now  born  in  sin,  that  when 
renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  he  receives  a  new  nature,  it  admits 
the  doctrine  of  concreated  holiness,  innate  sin,  and  of  infused 
or  inherent  grace.'      It  acknowledges  Adam  as  the  head  and 

'  Our  Relation  to  Adam. 
Lutheran  Authorities. 

Form  of  Concord,  p.  639.  Primo,  quod  hoc  hereditarium  malum  sit  culpa  seu 
reatus,  quo  fit,  ut  omnes,  propter  inobedientiam  Ada3  et  Hevas,  in  odio  apud  Deum, 
et  natura  fiilii  ira?  simus. 

Form  of  Concord,  p.  643.  Seductione  Satana;,  per  lapsum,  jvMo  Dei  judicio  (in 
poenam  hominum)  justitia  concreata  seu  originalis  amissa  est. 

Art.  Schm.  p.  317.  Peccatum  ab  uno  homine  ortum  esse  et  introiisse  in  mnn- 
dum,  per  cujus  inobedientiam  omnes  homines  facti  sunt  peccatores,  morti  et  diabolo 
obnoxii. 

Apology  for  Aug.  Con.  p.  58.  Defectus  et  concupiscentia  sunt  poense  [of  Adam's 
sin  of  which  the  context  speaks] ;  mors  et  alia  corporalia  mala  et  tyrannis  diaboli 
proprie  poenae  sunt. 

Gerhard,  (Tom.  II.  p.  132,  §  52).  Adam  non  ut  privatus  homo,  sed  ut  caput 
totius  humani  generis  peccavit ;  et  nos,  qui  lumbis  Adte  peccantis  delituimus,  in 
et  cum  eo  non  modo  corrupti,  sed  et  rei  irse,  Dei  facti  sumus. 

Quenstedt  (vol.  II  p.  53).     Peccatum  Adami  per  imputationem  nostrum  factum 
est,  qui  omnes  posteros  cum  culpse  turn  poense  implicuit,  et  ut  representator,  fons, 
caput  et  seminarium  totius  humanse  naturas  suam  illis  labem  aspersit. 
Reformed  Authorities. 

Shorter  Catechism.  The  covenant  being  made  with  Adam  not  only  for  himselfj 
but  for  his  posterity,  all  mankind  descending  from  him  by  ordinary  generation, 
sinned  in  him  and  feU  with  him  in  his  first  transgression. 

Formula  Consensus  Helvetica  X.  Sicut  autem  Deus  foedus  operum  cum  Adarno 
inivit  non  tantum  pro  ipso,  sed  etiam  in  ipso,  ut  capite  et  stirpe,  cum  toto  genere 
humano.  *  *  *  Censemus  igitur,  peccatum  Adami  omnibus  ejus  posteris  judicio 
Dei  arcano  et  justo  imputari.  *  *  *  Dulplici  igitur  nomine  post  peccatum  homo 
natura,  indeque  ab  ortu  suo,  antequam  ullum  actuale  peccatum  in  se  admittat,  ir* 
ac  maledictioni  divinse  obnoxius  est ;  primum  quidem  ob  irapuwru/xa  et  inobedien- 
tiam, quam  in  Adami  lumbis  commisit;  deinde  ob  consequentem  in  ipso  conceptu 
haereditariam  corruptionem  insitam. 

Original  Sin. 
Lutheran  Authorities. 

Augsburg  Confession,  p.  9,  (Hase's  Edition).  Item  docent,  quod  post  lapsum  Adae 
omnes  homines,  secundum  naturam  propagati,  nascantur  cum  peccato,  hoc  est,  sine 
metu  Dei,  sine  fiducia  erga  Deum,  et  cum  concupiscentia,  quodque  hie  morbus,  seu 
vitium  originis  vere  sit  peccatum,  damnans  et  afferens  nunc  quoque  mortem  his, 
qui  non  renascantur  per  Baptismum  et  Spiritum  Sanctum.  Damnant  Pelagianos  et 
alios,  qui  vitium  originis  negant  esse  peccatum. 

Apology  for  Aug.  Con.  p.  58.  In  scholis  transt\ilerunt  hue  (adversarii)  ex  philo- 
Bophia  prorsus  alienas  sententia.s,  quod  propter  passioues  nee  boui,  uec  mali  simus, 


AND    THAT     OF     THE    FEELINGS.  579 

representative  of  his  posterity,  in  whom  we  had  our  probation, 
in  whom  we  sinned  and  fell,  so  that  we  come  into  the  world 
under  condemnation,  being  born  the  children  of  wrath,  and  de- 
riving from  him  a  nature  not  merely  diseased,  weakened,  or  pre- 

nec  laudemur,  nee  vituperemur.  Item,  nihil  esse  peccatum,  nisi  voluntarium.  Hae 
sententicB  apud  philosophos  de  civili  judicio  dietse  sunt,  non  de  judicio  Dei. 

Form  of  Concord,  p.  640.  Et  primura  constat,  christianos  non  tantum,  actualia 
delicta  et  transgressiones  mandatorum  Dei  peccata  esse,  agnoscere  et  definire  debere, 
sed  etiam  horrendum  atque  abominabilem  ilium  hsereditarium  morbum,  per  quem 
tota  natura  corrupta  est,  imprimis  pro  horribili  peccato,  et  quidem  pro  principio  et 
capite  omnium  peccatorum  (e  quo  reliqute  transgressiones,  tanquam  e  radice  nas- 
cantur,  et  quasi  e  seaturigine  promaneut)  omnino  habendum  esse. 

Ibid.  p.  641.     Repudiantur  igitur  et  rejiciuntur  veterum  et  recentiorum  Pelagia- 
norum  falsfe  opiniones  et  dogmata  vana     *    *     *     quod  defectus  ille  et  malum 
hereditarium  non  sit  proprie  et  vere  coram  Deo  tale  peccatum,  propter  quod  homo 
filius  irse  et  damnationis  habeatur. 
Reformed  Authorities. 

Gonf.  Helv.  II.  cap.  8.  Qualis  (homo,  Adam)  factus  est  a  lapsu,  tales  omnes,  qui 
ex  eo  prognati  sunt,  peccato  inquam,  morti  variisque  obnoxii  calamitatibus.  Pec- 
catum autem  intelligimus  esse  nativam  illam  hominis  corruptionem  ex  primis  illis 
uostris  parentibus  in  nos  omnes  derivatam  vel  propagatam.  Gonf.  Gall.  Art.  IT. 
Credimus  hoc  vitium  esse  vere  peccatum,  &c. 

Belgic  Gonf.  Art.  15.  (Peccatum  originis)  est  totius  naturas  corruptio  et  vitium 
hsereditarium,  quo  et  ipsi  infantes  in  matris  su«  utero  poUuti  sunt,  quodque  veluti 
radix  omne  peccatorum  genus  in  homine  producit  ideoque  ita  foedum  et  exsecrabile 
est  coram  Deo,  ut  ad  generis  humani  condemnationem  suflBciat. 

Articles  of  the  Ghurch  of  England,  Art.  9.  Peccatum  originis  *  *  *  est  vitium  et 
depravatio  naturie  cujuslibet  hominis  ex  Adamo  naturaliter  propagati,  qua  fit,  ut  ab 
originali  justitia  quam  longissime  distet,  ad  malum  sua  natura  propendeat,  et  caro 
semper  adversus  spiritum  concupiseat,  unde  in  unoquoque  nascentium  iram  Dei  atque 
damnationem  meretur. 

Westminster  Gonfession,  ch,  6.  3.  They  [our  first  parents]  being  the  root  of  all 
mankind,  the  guilt  of  this  sin  [their  first  sin]  was  imputed,  and  the  same  death  in 
sin  and  corrupted  nature  conveyed  to  all  their  posterity,  descending  from  them  by 
ordinary  generation. 

This  corruption  of  nature,  during  this  life,  doth  remain  in  those  that  are  regene- 
rated ;  and  although  it  be  through  Christ  pardoned  and  mortified,  yet  both  itself; 
and  aU  the  motions  thereof,  are  truly  and  properly  sin. 

Inahility. 
Lutheran  Authorities. 

Avgsburff  Gonfession,  p.  15.  De  libero  arbitrio  docent,  quod  humana  voluntas 
habeat  aliquam  libertatem  ad  efiBciendam  civilem  justitiam  et  diligendas  res  rationi 
subjectas.  Sed  non  habet  vim  sine  Spiritu  Sancto  efficiendse  justitise  Dei  seu  jus- 
titiae  spiritualis. 

Damnant  Pelagianos  et  alios,  qui  docent,  quod  sine  Spiritu  Sancto,  solis  naturae 
viribus  possimus  Deum  supra  omnes  diligere. 

Form  of  Concord,  p.  579.     Credimus.  quantum  abest,  ut  corpus  niortuum  seipsuin 


580  THE    THEOLOGY     OF    THE    INTELLECT 

disposed  to  evil,  but  which  is  "itself"  as  well  as  "all  the 
motions  thereof,"  "  truly  and  properly  sin."  It  admits  that  by 
this  innate,  hereditary,  moral  depravity  men  are  altogether 
indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all  good  ;  so  that 

vivificare,  atque  sibi  ipsi  corporalem  vitam  reatituere  possit,  tantum  abesse  ut  homo, 
qui  rations  peccati  spiritualiter  mortuus  est,  seipsum  in  vitam  spiritualem  revocandi 
uUam  facultatem  habeat. 

Ibid.  p.  656.  Credimus,  quod  hominis  non  renati  intellectus,  cor  et  voluntas,  in 
rebus  spiritualibus  et  diviois,  ex  propriis  naturalibus  viribus  prorsus  nihil  intelligere, 
credere,  amplecti,  cogitare,  velle,  inchoare,  perficere,  agere,  operari,  aut  cooperari 
possint. 

Hid.  p.  643.     Viribus  suis  coram  Deo  nihil  aliud  nisi  peccare  potest. 

Ibid.  p.  662.  Antequam  homo  per  Spiritum  Sanctum  illuminatur,  convertitur, 
regeneratur  et  trahitur,  ex  sese  et  propriis  naturalibus  suis  viribus  in  rebus  spirituali- 
bus et  ad  conversionem  aut  regenerationem  suam  nihil  inchoare,  operari  aut  coope- 
rari potest,  nee  plus  quam  lapis,  truncus  aut  limus. 

Reformed  Authorities. 

Conf.  Helv.  iL  cap.  ix.  Constat  vero  mentem  vel  intellectum,  ducem  esse  volun- 
tatis, cum  autem  csecus  sit  dux,  claret  quousque  et  voluntas  pertingat.  Proinde 
nullum  est  ad  bonum  homini  arbitrium  liberum,  nondum  renato,  vires  nuUse  ad 
perficiendum  bonum. 

Ibid.  Cfeterum  nemo  negat  in  externis,  et  regenitos  et  non  regenitos  habere 
liberum  arbitrium.  Damnamus  in  hac  causa  Manichseos,  qui  negant  homini  bono, 
ex  libero  arbitrio  fuisse  initium  mali.  Damnamus  etiam  Pelagianos,  qui  dicunt 
liominem  malum  sufficienter  habere  liberum  arbitrium,  ad  faciendum  prseceptum 
bonum. 

Tliirty-Nine  Articles.  Art.  x.  The  condition  of  man  after  the  foil  is  such,  that 
he  cannot  turn  and  prepare  himself  by  his  own  natural  strength  and  good  works  to 
faith  and  calling  upon  God.  Therefore  we  have  no  power  to  do  good  works,  pleas- 
ant and  acceptable  to  God,  without  the  grace  of  God  by  Christ  preventing  us,  that 
we  may  have  a  good  will,  and  working  with  us  when  we  have  that  good  will. 

French  Confession.  Art.  ix.  Etsi  nonnullam  habet  (homo)  boni  et  mali  dis- 
cretionem :  aflQrmamus  tamen  quicquid  habet  lucis  mox  fieri  tenebras,  cum  de 
qugerendo  Deo  agitur,  adco  ut  sua  intelligentia  et  ratione  nullo  modo  possit  ad  eum 
accedere :  Item,  quamvis  voluntate  sit  prseditus,  qua  ad  hoc  vel  illud  movetur,  tamen 
([uum  ea  sit  penitus  sub  peccato  captiva,  nullara  prorsus  habet  ad  bonum  appeten- 
dum  libertatem,  nisi  quam  ex  gratia  et  Dei  dono  acceperit. 

Westminster  Confession,  ch.  ix.  3.  Man,  by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly 
lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any  spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation,  so  as  a  natural 
man  being  altogether  averse  from  that  whicli  is  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able, 
by  his  own  strength,  to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare  himself  thereunto. 

The  Work,  of  Christ  and  Justification. 
Lutheran  Authorities. 

Apology  for  the  Aug.  Con.  p.  93.  Christus,  quia  sine  peccato  subiit  pcenam 
peccati,  et  victima  pro  nobis  factus  est,  sustulit  illud  jus  legis,  ne  accuset,  ne  damnet 
hos,  qui  credunt  in  ipsum,  quia  ipse  est  propitiatio  i)ro  ois,  propter  quam  nunc  jasti 


AND     THAT     OF    THE     FEELINGS.  581 

their  ability  to  do  good  works  is  not  at  all  of  themselves,  but 
wholly  from  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  It  recognizes  justice  as  distin- 
guished from  benevolence,  to  be  an  essential  attribute  of  God, 
an  attribute  which  renders  the  punishment  of  sin  necessary,  not 
merely  as  a  means  of  moral  impression,  but  for  its  own  sake.  It, 
therefore,  regards  the  work  of  Christ  as  designed  to  satisfy  justice 
and  to  fulfil  the  demands  of  the  law  by  his  perfect  obedience  to 
its  precepts,  and  by  enduring  its  penalty  in  the  room  and  stead  of 
sinners.  His  righteousness  is  so  imputed  to  believers  that  their 
justification  is  not  merely  the  act  of  a  sovereign  dispensing  with 
law,  but  the  act  of  a  judge  declaring  the  law  to  be  satisfied. 

reputantur;  cum  autem  justi  reputentur,  lex  non  potest  eos  aceusare,  et  damuare, 
etiamsi  re  ipsa  legi  noa  satisfecerint. 

Form  of  Concord,  p.  684.  Justitia  ilia,  quee  coram  Deo  credentibus  ex  mera 
gratia  imputatur,  est  obedieutia,  passio  et  resurrectio  Christi,  quibus  ille  legi  nostra 
causa  satisfecit,  et  peccata  nostra  expiavit.  Cum  enim  Christus  non  tantum  homo, 
varum  Deus  et  homo  sit,  in  una  indivisa  persona,  tam  non  fuit  legi  subjectus,  quam 
non  fuit  passioni  et  morti  (ratione  suaas  personas)  obnoxius,  quia  Dominus  Legis  erat. 
Earn  ob  causam  ipsius  obedientia  (non  ea  tantum,  qua  Patri  paruit  in  toto  sua  pas- 
sione  et  morte,  verum  etiam,  qua  nostra  causa  sponte  sose  logi  subjecit,  eamque 
obedientia  ilia  sua  implevit)  nobis  ad  justitiam  imputatur,  ita  ut  Deus  propter  totam 
obedientiam  (quam  Christus  agendo  et  patiendo,  in  vita  et  morte  sua,  nostra  causa 
Patri  suo  prsestitit)  peccata  nobis  remittat,  pro  bonis  et  justis  nos  reputet  et  salute 
asteraa  donet. 

Quenstenherg.  "  Quia  non  tantum  ab  ira  Dei,  justi  judicis,  liberandus  erat  homo, 
sed  et  ut  coram  Deo  possit  consistere,  justitia  ei  opus  erat,  quam  nisi  impleta  lege 
consequi  non  poterat,  ideo  Christus  utrumque  in  se  suscepit,  et  non  tantum  passus 
est  pro  nobis,  sed  et  legi  in  omnibus  satisfecit,  ut  haec  ipsius  impletio  et  obedientia 
in  justitiam  imputaretur. 

Reformed  Authorities. 

Helv.  Confession,  Cap.  11.  Ideirco  Christus  est  perfectio  legis  et  adimpletio  nostra, 
qui  ut  execrationem  legis  sustulit,  dum  factus  est  pro  nobis  maledictio,  vel  execratio, 
ita  communicat  nobis  per  fidem  adimpletionem  suam,  nobisque  ejus  imputatur 
justitia  et  obedientia. 

French  Confession,  Art.  17.  Testamur,  Jesum  Christum  esse  integram  et  perfectam 
nostram  ablutionem,  in  cujus  morte  plenam  satisfactionem  nanciscimur. 

Belgic  Confession,  Art.  xx.  Credimus  Deum,  qui  summe  et  perfectissime  est  tum 
misericors  tum  Justus,  Filium  suum  misisse,  ut  naturam  illam  assumeret,  quae  per 
inobedientiam  peccaret,  ut  in  ea  ipsa,  natura  satisflceret,  atque  ut  Deus  de  peccato 
per  acerbissimam  mortem  et  passionem  Pilii  sui  justas  poenas  sumeret. 

Heidelberg  Cat.  Ix.  Qiwmodo  Justus  es  coram  Deo  ?  Sola  fide  in  Jesum  Christum, 
adeo  ut  licet  mea  me  conscientia  accuset,  quod  adversus  omnia  mandata  Dei  graviter 
peccaverim,  nee  ullum  eorum  servaverim,  adhaec  etiamnum  ad  omne  malum  pro- 
pensus  sim,  nihilominus  tamen  (modo  hsec  beneficia  vera  animi  flducia  amplectar), 
sine  ullo  meo  merito,  ex  mera  Dei  misericordia,  mihi  perfecta  satisfactio,  justitia  et 


582  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    INTELLECT 

Kegarding  man  in  his  natural  state  as  spiritually  dead  and  help- 
less, this  system  denies  that  regeneration  is  the  sinner's  own  act, 
or  that  it  consists  of  any  change  within  his  power  to  effect,  or 
that  he  can  prepare  himself  thereto,  or  co-operate  in  it.  It  is 
a  change  in  the  moral  state  of  the  soul,  the  production  of  a  new 
nature,  and  is  effected  by  the  mighty  power  of  God,  the  soul 
being  the  subject  and  not  the  agent  of  the  change  thereby 
produced.  It  receives  a  new  life  which  when  imparted  manifests 
itself  in  all  appropriate  holy  acts.  This  life  is  sustained  by  the 
indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  whose  influence  all  right  exer- 
cises are  to  be  referred.  Salvation  is  thus  in  its  provision,  appli- 
cation, and  consummation,  entirely  of  grace. 

Conviction  of  sin  under  this  system  is  more  than  remorse  for 
actual  transgressions,  it  is  also  a  sense  of  the  thorough  deprav- 
ity of  the  whole  nature  penetrating  far  beneath  the  acts  of  the 
soul,  affecting  its  permanent  moral  states  which  lie  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  will :  and  a  sense  of  helplessness  is  more  than  a 
conviction  of  the  stubbornness  of  the  will ;  it  is  a  consciousness 
of  an  entire  want  of  power  to  change  those  inherent,  moral 
states  in  which  our  depravity  principally  consists,  and  a  conse- 
quent persuasion  that  we  are  absolutely  dependent  on  God. 
Christ  is  not  regarded  in  this  system  as  simply  rendering  it  con- 
sistent in  God  to  bestow  blessings  upon  sinners  ;  so  that  we  can 
come  to  the  Father  of  ourselves  with  a  mere  obeisance  to  the 
Lord  Jesus  for  having  opened  the  door.  Christ  is  declared  to  be 
our  righteousness  and  life  ;  we  are  united  to  him  not  merely  in 
feeling,  but  by  covenant  and  vitality  by  his  Spirit,  so  that  the 
life  which  we  live  is  Christ  living  in  us.  He  is  therefore,  our  all, 
our  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctilication,  and  redemption  ;  and 
consequently  what  the  sinner  is  called  upon  to  do  in  order  to 

sanctitas  Christi  imputetur  ac  donetur ;  perinde  ac  si  nee  ullum  ipse  peccatum  ad- 
misissem,  nee  ulla  mihi  labes  inhajreret :  imo  vero  quasi  earn  obedientiam,  quam  pro 
me  Cliristus  prajstitit,  ipse  perfecte  prsestitissem. 

Westminster  Confession.  The  Lord  Jesus,  by  his  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice 
of  himself,  which  he,  through  the  eternal  Spirit  once  offered  up  unto  God,  hath  fully 
satisfied  the  justice  of  his  Father,  and  purchased  not  only  reconcQiation,  but  an 
everlasting  inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  for  all  those  whom  the  Father 
hath  given  unto  him.     Ch.  viii.  5. 

Ibid.  ch.  xi.  Those  whom  God  effectually  calleth,  he  also  freely  justifieth  *  *  * 
by  imputing  the  obedience  and  satisfaction  of  Christ  unto  them,  they  receiving  and 
resting  on  him  and  his  righteousness  by  faith. 


AND    THAT    OF     THE    FEELINGS,  583 

be  saved  is  not  merely  to  submit  to  Grod  as  his  sovereign,  or  to 
make  choice  of  God  as  his  portion ;  that  indeed  he  does,  but 
the  specific  act  by  which  he  is  saved,  is  receiving  and  resting 
on  Christ  alone  for  salvation.  Hence,  neither  benevolence,  nor 
philanthropy,  nor  any  other  principle  of  natural  piety  is  the 
governing  motive  of  the  believer's  life,  but  the  love  of  Christ, 
who  loved  us  and  gave  himself  for  us.  Whether  the  believer 
lives,  he  lives  unto  the  Lord  ;  or  whether  he  dies,  he  dies  unto 
the  Lord,  so  that  living  or  dying  he  is  the  Lord's  ;  who  for  this 
end  both  died  and  rose  again  that  he  might  be  the  Lord  both  of 
the  dead  and  of  the  living. 

There  are  three  leading  characteristics  of  this  system,  by 
which  it  is  distinguished  from  that  to  which  it  stands  opposed. 
The  latter  is  characteristically  rational.  It  seeks  to  explain 
every  thing  so  as  to  be  intelligible  to  the  speculative  under- 
standing. The  former  is  confessedly  mysterious.  The  Apostle 
pronounces  the  judgment  of  God  to  be  unsearchable  and  his 
ways  past  finding  out,  as  they  are  specially  exhibited  in  the 
doctrines  of  redemption,  and  in  the  dispensations  of  God  toward 
our  race.  The  origin  of  sin,  the  fall  of  man,  the  relation  of 
Adam  to  his  posterity,  the  transmission  of  his  corrupt  nature  to 
all  descended  from  him  by  ordinary  generation,  the  consistency 
of  man's  freedom  with  God's  sovereignty,  the  process  of  regen- 
eration, the  relation  of  the  believer  to  Christ,  and  other  doctrines 
of  the  like  kind,  do  not  admit  of  "  philosophical  explanation." 
They  can  not  be  dissected  and  mapped  off  so  as  that  the  points 
of  contact  and  mode  of  union  with  all  other  known  truths  can 
be  clearly  understood  ;  nor  can  God's  dealings  with  our  race  be 
all  explained  on  the  common-sense  principles  of  moral  govern- 
ment. The  system  which  Paul  taught  was  not  a  system  of 
common  sense,  but  of  profound  and  awful  mystery.  The  second 
distinguishing  characteristic  of  this  system  is  that  its  whole 
tendency  is  to  exalt  God  and  to  humble  man.  It  does  not 
make  the  latter  feel  that  he  is  the  great  end  of  all  things,  or 
that  he  has  his  destiny  in  his  own  hands.  It  asks,  Who  hath 
known  the  mind  of  the  Lord  ?  or  who  hath  been  his  counsellor  ? 
or  who  hath  first  given  to  him  and  it  shall  be  recompensed  unto 
him  again  ?  God's  supremacy,  the  Apostle  teaches  us,  is  seen 
in  his  permitting  our  race  to  fall  in  Adam,  and  sin  thus  by  one 
man  to  pass  on  all  men,  so  that  by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment 


584      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation.  It  is  seen  in  tlie  nature 
of  the  plan  of  salvation,  which  excludes  all  merit  on  the  part  of 
those  who  are  saved,  and  takes  for  granted  their  entire  helpless- 
ness. It  is  still  more  clearly  manifested  in  God's  administration 
of  this  economy  of  mercy  ;  in  its  gradual  revelation,  in  its  being 
so  long  confined  to  one  nation,  in  its  being  now  made  know^n 
to  one  people  and  not  to  another,  in  its  being  apjilied  where  it 
is  known  to  the  salvation  of  some,  and  to  the  greater  condemna- 
tion of  others,  and  in  the  sovereignty  which  presides  over  the 
selection  of  the  vessels  of  mercy.  It  is  not  the  wise,  the  great, 
or  the  noble  whom  God  calls,  but  the  foolish,  the  base,  and 
those  that  are  not,  that  they  who  glory  should  glory  in  the  Lord, 
Thirdly,  this  system  represents  God  as  himself  the  end  of  all  his 
Avorks  both  in  creation  and  in  redemption.  It  is  not  the  uni- 
verse, but  God  ;  not  the  happiness  of  creatures,  but  the  infinitely 
higher  end  of  the  Divine  glory,  which  is  contemplated  in  all 
these  revelations  and  dispensations.  For  of  him,  through  him, 
and  to  him  are  all  things  :  to  whom  be  glory  for  ever.  Amen. 

It  is  an  undeniable  historical  fact,  that  this  system  underlies 
the  piety  of  the  Church  in  all  ages.  It  is  the  great  granitic 
formation  whose  peaks  tower  toward  heaven,  and  draw  thence 
the  waters  of  life,  and  in  whose  capacious  bosom  repose  those 
green  pastures  in  which  the  great  Shepherd  gathers  and  sus- 
tains his  flock.  It  has  withstood  all  changes,  and  it  still  stands. 
Heat  and  cold,  snow  and  rain,  gentle  abrasion  and  violent  con- 
vulsions leave  it  as  it  was.  It  cannot  be  moved.  In  our  own 
age  and  country,  this  system  of  doctrine  has  had  to  sustain  a 
renewed  conflict.  It  has  been  assailed  by  argument,  by  ridicule, 
by  contempt.  It  has  been  pronounced  absurd,  obsolete,  etiete, 
powerless.  It  has  withstood  logic,  indignation,  wit,  and  even 
the    Hexagon.      Still  it  stands.'     What  then  is  to  be  done  ? 

'  The  New  York  Independent,  in  a  notice  of  our  former  review,  objected  to  the 
tone  of  confidenee  with  which  we  wrote  on  tliis  subject.  How  can  we  help  it  ?  A 
man  behind  the  walls  of  Gibraltar,  or  of  Ehrenbreitstein,  cannot,  if  he  would,  tremble 
at  the  sight  of  a  single  knight,  however  gallant  or  well-appointed  he  may  be.  His 
confidence  is  due  to  his  position,  not  to  a  consciousness  of  personal  strength.  A  man 
at  sea  with  a  stout  ship  under  him,  has  a  sense  cf  security  in  no  measure  founded 
upon  himself.  A  Christian  surrounded  by  learned  sceptics  may  be  deeply  sensible 
of  his  own  weakness,  and  yet  serenely  confident  in  the  strength  of  his  cause.  "We 
then  who  are  within  those  old  walls  which  have  stood  for  ages,  even  from  the  begin- 
ning, who  can  look  around  and  see  the  names  of  all  generations  of  saints  inscribed 
on  those  walls,  and  who  feel  the  solid  rock  of  God's  word  under  their  feet,  must  ba 


AND     THAT     OF    THE     FEELINGS.  685 

Professor  Park,  with  rare  ingenuity,  answers,  "  Let  us  admit  its 
truth,  but  maintain  that  it  does  not  diifer  from  the  other  system. 
There  are  two  theologies,  one  for  the  feelings,  the  other  for  the 
intellect,  or  what  may  be  made  to  mean  iirecisely  the  same  thing, 
two  forms  of  one  and  the  same  theology  ;  the  one  precise  and 
definite,  designed  to  satisfy  the  intelligence,  the  other  vague  and 
intense,  adapted  to  the  feehngs.  Both  are  true,  for  at  bottom 
they  are  the  same.  It  is  in  vain  to  deny  this  old  theology.  It 
is  in  the  Bible,  in  the  creeds,  in  the  liturgies,  in  the  hymns  of 
the  Church,  and  in  the  hearts  of  God's  people.  It  will  not  do  to 
laugh  at  it  any  longer  ;  it  has  too  much  power.  We  must  treat 
it  with  respect,  and  call  it  doctrine,  when  we  mean  only  'images, 
illustrations  and  intense  expressions.' " 

We  are  now  prepared,  we  think,  for  a  fair  statement  of  the 
Status  Qiicestionis.  The  question  is  not,  which  of  the  antago- 
nistic systems  of  theology  above  described  is  true  ;  or  whether 
either  is  true.  Nor  is  the  question,  which  of  the  two  Professor 
Park  believes.  His  own  faith  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  ques- 
tion. So  far  as  the  present  discussion  is  concerned,  he  may  hold 
neither  of  these  systems  in  its  integrity  ;  or  he  may  hold  the  one 
which  we  believe  to  be  true,  or  he  may  hold  the  opposite  one. 
The  point  to  be  considered  is  not  so  much  a  doctrinal  one  as  a 
principle  of  interpretation,  a  theory  of  exegesis  and  its  applica- 
tion. The  question  is,  whether  there  is  any  correct  theory  of 
interpretation  by  which  the  two  systems  above  referred  to  can 
be  harmonized  ?  Are  they  two  theologies  equally  true,  the  one 
the  theology  of  the  intellect,  the  other  the  theology  of  the  feel- 
ings ?  In  other  words,  are  they  diiferent  forms  of  one  and  the 
same' theology  ? 

We  take  the  greater  interest  in  this  question,  because  this  is 
evidently  the  last  arrow  in  the  quiver.      Every  thing  else  has 

excused  for  a  feeling  of  securit}-.  We  invite  our  critic  to  come  within  this  strong 
tower,  and  to  place  his  feet  upon  this  same  rock,  and  he  will  find  how  strength- 
mspiring  it  is,  even  though  his  personal  humility  should  be  increased  by  the  experi- 
ment. We  beg  of  him  at  least  not  to  confound  confidence  in  a  system  which  has 
been  held  for  ages,  with  self-confidence.  Our  Independent  brethren  seem  to  have 
lost  the  idea  of  the  church.  Some  of  them  have  even  written  against  the  article  in 
the  creed  which  affirms  faith  in  that  doctrine.  They  appear  to  tliink  tiiat  every 
man  stands  by  himself,  that  nothing  is  ever  settled,  that  every  theological  discussion 
is  a  controversy  between  individuals.  But  there  is  such  a  thing  as  the  Churcli,  and 
that  church  has  a  faith,  and  against  that  faith  no  one  man  and  no  angel  is  ahy  faij 
match. 


586  THE    THEOLOGY    OF     THE    INTELLECT 

been  tried  and  failed  ;  and,  if  this  fail,  there  is  an  end  of  this 
series  of  conflicts.  Whatever  is  to  come  after  must  be  of  a  dif- 
ferent kind,  and  from  a  different  quarter.  We  propose  then, 
First,  to  show  that  the  above  statement  of  the  question  presents 
fairly  and  clearly  the  real  point  at  issue  ;  Secondly,  to  consider 
the  success  of  this  attempt  to  harmonize  these  conflicting  systems 
of  theology  ;  and  Thirdly,  to  examine  the  nature  of  the  theory 
by  which  that  reconciliation  has  been  attempted. 

That  the  above  statement  of  the  question  presents  clearly  and 
correctly  the  real  point  at  issue,  we  argue  in  the  first  place  from 
the  distinct  avowals  of  the  author.  He  exi)resses  the  hope 
"  that  many  various  forms  of  faith  will  yet  be  blended  into  a 
consistent  knowledge,  like  the  colors  in  a  single  ray."'  "  Many 
pious  men,"  he  says,  "  are  distressed  by  the  apparent  contra- 
dictions in  our  best  theological  literature,  and  for  their  sake 
another  practical  lesson  developed  in  the  discourse  is,  the  im- 
portance of  exhibiting  the  mutual  consistency  between  all  the 
expressions  of  right  feeling.  The  discrepancies  so  often  lamented 
are  not  fundamental,  but  superficial,  and  are  easily  harmonized 
by  exposing  the  one  self-consistent  principle,  which  lies  at  their 
basis." ""  Over  and  over  it  is  asserted  in  the  discourse,  that 
wbile  the  intellectual  theology  is  '  accurate  not  in  its  spirit  only, 
but  in  its  letter  also,'  the  emotive  theology  involves  '  the  sub- 
stance of  truth,  although  when  literally  interpreted  it  may  or 
may  not  be  false.'  The  purport  of  one  entire  head  in  the  ser- 
mon is  to  prove,  that  the  one  theology  is  precisely  the  same 
with  the  other  in  its  real  meaning,  though  not  always  in  its 
form  ;  that  the  expressions  of  right  feeling,  if  they  do  contradict 
each  other  '  when  unmodijied,'  can  and  must  be  so  explained  as 
to  harmonize  both  with  each  other,  and  with  the  decisions  of  the 
judgment.  "-'  *  *  The  sermon  repeats  again  and  again,  that  it 
is  impossible  to  believe  contradictory  statements,  '  without  quali- 
fying some  of  them  so  as  to  prevent  their  subverting  each  other;' 
that  the  reason  '  being  the  circumspect  power  which  looks  before 
and  after,  does  not  allow  that  of  these  conflicting  statements 
each  can  be  true,  save  in  a  qualified  sense  ;  and  that  such  state- 
ments must  be  qualified  by  disclosing  the  fundamental '  principle 
in  which  they  all  agree  for  substance  of  doctrine,'  '  the  principle 
which  will  rectify  one  of  the  discrepant  expressions  by  explaining 
•  Sermon,  p.  561.  2  Reply,  p.  137. 


AND    THAT     OF     THE     FEELINGS.  587 

it  into  an  essential  agreement  with  the  other.' "'  The  sermon 
then  was  designed  to  harmonize  those  "  apparent  contradictions" 
in  doctrinal  statements  by  which  pious  men  are  distressed.  It 
was  intended  to  teach  that  the  two  theologies,  the  intellectual 
and  emotive,  though  they  may  differ  in  form,  agree  in  substance 
of  doctrine.  Accordingly  he  says,  "  Pitiable  indeed  is  the  logo- 
machy of  polemic  divines.  We  have  somewhere  read,  that  the 
Berkleians  who  denied  the  existence  of  matter,  differed  more 
in  terms  than  in  opinion  from  their  opponents,  who  affirmed 
the  existence  of  matter,  for  the  former  uttered  with  emphasis, 
'  We  cannot  prove  that  there  is  an  outward  world,'  and  then 
whispered,  '  We  are  yet  compelled  to  believe  that  there  is  one  ;' 
whereas  the  latter  uttered  with  emphasis,  '  We  are  compelled  to 
believe  in  an  outer  world,'  and  then  whispered,  '  Yet  we  cannot 
prove  that  there  is  one.'  This  is  not  precisely  accurate,  still  it 
serves  to  illustrate  the  amount  of  difference  which  exists  between 
the  reviewer  and  the  author  of  the  humble  convention  sermon."* 
And  further,  it  is  said  expressly,  "  One  aim  of  the  sermon  was 
to  show  that  all  creeds  which  are  allowable  can  be  reconciled 
with  each  other."^  Precisely  so.  Thus  we  understand  the 
matter.  We  do  not  overlook  the  word  allowable  in  this  state- 
ment. It  was  doubtless  intended  to  do  good  service.  We  did 
not  understand  the  sermon  to  advocate  entire  scepticism,  and  to 
teach  that  whatever  may  be  affirmed,  can  with  equal  propriety 
be  denied.  Nor  was  it  understood  to  teach  that  all  religions  are 
true,  being  different  forms  of  expression  for  the  same  generic 
religious  sentiment.  Nor  did  we  understand  our  author  to  advo- 
cate that  latitudinarianism  which  embraces  and  harmonizes  all 
nominally  Christian  creeds.  He  says  expressly,  "  There  is  a  line 
of  separation  which  cannot  be  crossed  between  those  systems 
which  insert  and  those  which  omit  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith  in  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus."  *  The  sermon,  therefore,  was 
not  regarded  as  a  plea  for  Socinianism  as  an  allowable  form  of 
Christianity.  But  it  was  understood  to  teach  that  "all  allow- 
able creeds  can  be  reconciled  with  each  other."  The  only  ques- 
tion is,  what  creeds  are  regarded  as  coming  within  this  limitation. 
That  the  two  great  antagonistic  systems  which  we  have  attempted 
to  characterize  are  considered  as  belonging  to  this  category,  is 
evident  because  these  are  the  systems  which  from  the  beginning 
'  Keply,  p.  149.  "^  Reply,  p.  173.        ^  Reply,  p.  175.        ■•  Sermon,  p.  559. 


588      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

to  the  end  of  the  sermon,  and  still  more  clearly  in  the  reply,  are 
brought  into  view  and  compared  with  each  other.  To  this  fact 
we  appeal  as  the  second  proof  that  the  statement  of  the  question 
at  issue,  as  given  above,  is  con-ect.  The  systems,  which  our 
author  attempts  to  reconcile,  are  those  we  have  described  in  the 
former  part  of  this  article.  In  the  first  place  the  radical  prin- 
ciples of  one  of  those  systems  are  distinctly  presented  in  the  ser- 
mon. Those  principles,  as  before  remarked,  are,  that  moral 
character  is  confined  to  acts,  that  liberty  supjjoses  power  to  the 
contrary,  and  that  ability  limits  responsibility.  These  principles 
are  all  recognized  in  the  following  passages  of  the  sermon,  if  we 
are  capable  of  understanding  the  meaning  of  the  author.  After 
representing  the  convinced  sinner  as  saying :  "  I  long  to  heap 
infinite  upon  infinite,  and  crowd  together  all  forms  of  self-re- 
proach, for  I  am  clad  in  sin  as  with  a  garment,  I  devour  it  as  a 
sweet  morsel,  I  breathe  it,  I  live  it,  I  am  sin,"  &c.,  he  adds, 
"  But  when  a  theorist  seizes  at  such  living  words  as  these,  and 
puts  them  into  his  vice,  and  straightens  them  or  crooks  them 
into  the  dogma,  that  man  is  blameable  before  he  chooses  to  do 
wrong  ;  deserving  of  punishment  for  the  involuntary  nature 
which  he  has  never  consented  to  gratify  ;  really  sinful  before  he 
actually  sins,  then  i\\i  language  of  emotion  forced  from  its  right 
place,  and  treated  as  if  it  were  a  part  of  a  nicely  measured  syllo- 
gism, hampers  and  confuses  his  reasonings,  until  it  is  given  to 
the  use  for  which  it  was  first  intended,  and  from  which  it  never 
ought  to  have  been  diverted."  '  "  Is  it  said,  however,  that  a 
passive  nature,  existing  antecedently  to  all  free  action,  is  itself, 
strictly,  literally  sinful  ?  Then  we  must  speak  a  new  language, 
and  speak,  in  prose,  of  moral  patients  as  well  as  moral  agents,  of 
men  hesinned  as  well  as  sinners,  (for  ex  vi  termini  sinners  as 
well  as  runners  must  be  active  ;)  we  must  have  a  new  conscience 
which  can  decide  on  the  moral  character  of  moral  conditions,  as 
well  as  of  elective  preferences ;  a  new  law  prescribing  the  very 
make  of  the  soul,  as  well  as  the  way  in  which  the  soul,  when  made, 
shall  act ;  and  a  law  which  we  transgress  (for  sin  is  '  a  transgres- 
sion of  the  law')  in  being  before  birth  passively  misshapen  ;  we 
must  also  have  a  new  Bible,  delineating  a  judgment  scene  in 
which  some  will  be  condemned,  not  only  on  account  of  deeds 
which  they  have  done  in  the  body,  but  also  for  having  been  born 

'  Sermon,  p.  552. 


AND    THAT    OF     THE    FEELINGS,  589 

with  an  involuntary  proclivity  to  sin,  and  others  will  be  rewarded 
not  only  for  their  conscientious  [conscious  ?]  love  to  Christ,  but 
also  for  a  blind  nature  inducing  that  love  ;  we  must,  in  fine, 
have  an  entirely  different  class  of  moral  sentiments,  and  have 
them  disciplined  by  Inspiration  in  an  entirely  different  nmnner 
from  the  jiresent  ;  for  now  the  feelings  of  all  true  men  revolt 
from  the  assertion,  that  a  poor  infant  dying,  if  we  may  suppose 
it  to  die,  before  its  first  wrong  preference,  merits  for  its  unavoid- 
able nature,  that  eternal  punishment,  which  is  threatened,  and 
justly,  against  even  the  sro.allest  sin.  Although  it  may  seem 
paradoxical  to  afhrm  that  '  a  man  may  believe  a  proposition 
which  he  knows  to  be  false,'  it  is  yet  charitable  to  say  that  what- 
ever any  man  may  suppose  himself  to  believe,  he  has  in  fact  an 
inward  conviction,  that  '  all  sin  consists  in  sinning,'  There  is 
comparatively  little  dispute  on  the  nature  of  moral  evil,  when 
the  words  relating  to  it  are  fully  understood."^  As  to  the  other 
points  we  have  such  language  as  the  following  :  Man's  "  unva- 
ried wrong  choices  imply  a  full,  unremitted,  natural  power  of 
choosing  right.  The  emotive  theology,  therefore,  when  it  affirms 
this  power  is  correct  both  in  matter  and  style  ;  but  when  it 
denies  this  power,  it  uses  the  language  of  intensity  ;  it  means 
the  certainty  of  wrong  preference  by  declaring  the  inability  of 
right,  and  in  its  vivid  use  of  can  not  for  tuill  not  is  accurate  in 
substance,  but  not  in  form."  ^  One  of  the  expressions  put  in  the 
lips  of  the  emotive  theology,  and  which  is  pronounced  correct 
both  in  matter  and  style  is  :  "  If  I  had  been  as  holy  as  I  had 
P'Ower  to  be,  then  I  had  been  perfect."  Another  is,  I  know  thee 
that  thou  art  not  a  hard  master,  exacting  of  me  duties  which  I 
have  no  power  to  discharge,  but  thou  attemperest  thy  lavv^  to  my 
strength,  and  at  no  time  imposest  upon  me  a  heavier  burden 
than  thou  at  that  very  time  raakest  me  able  to  bear," '  In  note 
F.  at  the  end  of  the  sermon  it  is  said  :  "  The  pious  necessarian 

'  Sermon,  p.  568.  It  ought  to  be  remembered  that  there  i.s  not  a  creed  of  any 
Christian  church  (wo  do  not  mean  separate  congregation)  in  which  the  doctrine,  that 
inherent  corruption  as  existing  prior  to  voluntary  action  is  of  the  nature  of  sin,  is 
not  distinctly  affirmed.  The  wliole  Latin  church,  the  Lutheran,  all  the  branches  of 
the  Reformed  church,  unite  in  the  most  express,  "  nicely  measured"  assertions  of 
faith  in  this  doctrine.  In  view  of  this  fact  we  think  the  tone  of  the  paragraph 
<luoted  above,  and  especially  of  the  concluding  sentences  must  be  considered  a  little 
remarkable.  "We  hope  we  shall  hear  no  complaints  hereafter,  of  over-weening  cou- 
fidence.  "  Sermon,  p.  548,  3  Sermon,  p.  54"?, 


590  THE    THEOLOGY    OF     THE    INTELLECT 

has  a  good  moral  purpose  in  declaring  that  the  present  and  future 
obligations  of  men,  do  and  will  exceed  their  power."  This,  in 
the  connexion,  implies  that  in  the  judgment  of  the  writer,  men's 
obligations  do  not  exceed  their  power. 

Not  only  are  these  general  principles  thus  recognized,  but  the 
two  systems  are  compared  very  much  in  their  details,  and  their 
harmony  is  exhibited  by  disclosing  the  fundamental  principle  in 
which  they  agree  for  substance  of  doctrine.  The  one  system 
says.  The  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  his  posterity.  The  other 
says,  The  sin  of  Adam  is  7iot  imjiuted  to  his  posterity.  The 
fundamental  principle  in  which  they  agree  is,  That  the  sin  of 
Adam  was  the  occasion  of  certain  evils  coming  upon  his  race. 
The  former  statement  is  only  an  intense  form  of  expressing  this 
definite  idea.  The  one  system  asserts.  That  the  nature  of  man 
since  the  fall  is  sinful  anterior  to  actual  transgressions.  The 
other  says,  All  sin  consists  in  sinning,  a  passive  nature  existing 
antecedently  to  all  free  action  cannot  be  sinful.  Still  these 
declarations  are  consistent.  Sinful  in  the  former  must  be  taken 
to  mean  prone  to  sin.  "  This  nature,  as  it  certainly  occasions 
sin,  may  be  sometimes  called  sinful,  in  a  peculiar  sense,  for  the 
sake  of  intensity."'  The  one  system  says.  That  men,  since  the 
fall,  are,  while  unrenewed,  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and 
made  opposite  to  all  good — so  that  their  ability  to  do  good 
works  is  not  at  all  of  themselves,  but  entirely  from  the  Spirit  of 
Christ.  The  other  asserts.  That  such  language  is  merely  a 
''  vivid  use  of  can  not  for  will  not,  accurate  in  substance,  though 
not  in  its  form."  The  one  teaches  that  the  commands  of  God 
continue  to  bind  those  who  are  unable  perfectly  to  keep  them. 
The  other  asserts,  That  unable  here  means  unwilling,  because 
God  always  attempers  his  law  to  our  strength.  The  one  says, 
That  man  is  passive  in  regeneration,  that  he  therein  receives  a 
new  nature,  a  principle  of  grace,  which  is  the  source  of  all  holy 
exercises.  The  other  repudiates  the  idea  of  "  a  blind  natiu-e 
inducing  love,"  having  a  moral  character,  but  it  may  be  called 
holy  as  tending  to  holiness,  just  as,  "  for  the  sake  of  intensity," 
we  may  call  that  sinful  which  tends  to  sin.  In  like  manner  the 
different  representations  concerned  the  work  of  Christ,  however* 
apparently  conflicting,  are  represented  as  different  only  in  form 
Thus  in  regard  to  our  relation  to  Adam,  the  consequences  of 

'Reply,  p.  174. 


AND    THAT    OF     THE     FEELINGS.  591 

his  apostacy,  the  natural  state  of  man,  ability  and  inability,  the 
nature  of  regeneration,  the  atonement  of  Christ,  the  justification 
of  sinners  before  Grod,  the  statements  of  the  two  systems  are 
declared  to  be  identical  in  meaning,  however  different  in  form, 
or  a  mode  of  statement  is  proposed  which  is  made  to  compre- 
liend  both.  We  can  hardly  be  mistaken,  therefore,  in  saying, 
that  the  design  of  the  sermon  is  to  show  that  both  of  these  are 
allowable,  and  may  be  reconciled.  If  anything  is  clear,  either 
in  the  sermon  or  the  reply,  it  is  that  these  systems  are  repre- 
sented as  different  modes  of  presenting  one  and  the  same 
theology,  the  one  adapted  to  the  feeling,  the  other  to  the  intel- 
lect. If  this  is  not  the  case,  then  Professor  Park  has  failed  tc 
convey  the  most  remote  idea  of  his  meaning  to  a  multitude  of 
minds,  more  or  less  accustomed  to  such  discussions,  and  must  be 
set  down  as  either  the  most  unfortunate  or  the  most  unintelli- 
gible writer  of  modern  times. 

If  this  is  a  proper  statement  of  the  case,  it  must  be  admitted 
that  the  author  has  undertaken  a  great  work.  We  know  no 
parallel  to  it  but  the  famous  Oxford  Tract,  Number  Ninety  ;  and 
even  that  was  a  modest  effort  in  comparison.  Dr.  Newman 
merely  attempted  to  show  that  there  was  "  a  non-natural  sense" 
of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  in  which  a  Romanist  might  sign 
them.  He  did  not  pretend,  if  our  memory  serves  us,  that  the 
sense  which  he  put  upon  them  was  their  true  historical  meaning. 
But  Professor  Park  proposes  to  show,  if  Ave  understand  him, 
that  the  two  systems  above  referred  to  are  identical  ;  that  the 
one  is  the  philosophic  explanation  of  the  other  ;  that  they  are 
different  modes  of  stating  the  same  general  truths,  both  modes 
being  allowable  ;  that  the  one,  in  short,  is  the  theology  of  the 
feelings,  and  the  other  the  theology  of  the  intellect.  When  we 
reflect  on  what  is  necessarily,  even  though  unconsciously, 
assumed  in  this  attempt,  when  we  raise  our  eyes  to  the  height 
to  which  it  is  necessary  the  author  should  ascend  before  aU 
these  things  could  appear  alike  to  him,  we  are  bewildered.  It 
is  surely  no  small  matter  for  a  man  to  rise  up  and  tell  the  world 
that  the  Augustinians  and  Pelagians,  Thomists  and  Scotists, 
Dominicans  and  Franciscans,  Jansenists  and  Jesuits,  Calvinists 
and  Remonstrants,'  have  for  centuries  been  contending  about 

'  These  terms  are  used  in  their  historical  sense  ;  Augustinianism  and  Pelagianism 
are  designations  of  forms  of  theology  distinguished  by  certain  characteristic  features. 
The  former  does  not  include  every  opinion  held  by  Augustine,  nor  the  latter  every 


592  THE    THEOLOGY    OF     THE    INTELLECT 

words ;  that  they  perfectly  agree,  if  they  had  but  sense  to  see 
it ;  that  all  the  decisions  of  synods,  all  the  profound  discussions 
of  the  greatest  men  in  history,  relating  to  these  subjects,  are 
miserable  logomachies.  We  can  understand  how  even  a  bal)e  in 
Christ,  under  the  teaching  of  the  Spirit,  may  rightfully  and  in 
full  consciousness  of  Truth,  lift  its  solitary  voice  against  the 
errors  of  ages.  But  we  cannot  understand  how  any  uninspired 
man  could  have  the  courage  to  say  to  the  two  great  parties  in 
the  church,  that  they  understand  neither  themselves  nor  each 
other  ;  that  while  they  think  they  differ,  they  actually  agree. 

That  this  attempt  to  reconcile  "  all  allowable  creeds"  is  a 
failure,  no  one  would  thank  us  for  proving.  Can  it  be  necessary 
to  show  that  the  differences  between  the  two  systems  brought 
into  view  in  this  sermon  are  substantial  difierences  of  doctrine 
and  not  a  mere  difference  in  words  ?  To  say  that  the  sin  of 
Adam  is  imputed  to  his  posterity  is  to  express  a  different 
thought,  a  different  doctrine,  from  what  is  expressed  by  sapng 
that  his  sin  was  merely  the  occasion  of  certain  evils  coming 
upon  his  race.  The  one  of  these  statements  is  not  merely  an 
intense,  figurative,  or  poetic  expression  of  the  thought  conveyed 
by  the  latter.  The  former  means  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the 
judicial  ground  of  the  condemnation  of  his  race,  and  therefore 
that  the  evils  inflicted  on  them  on  account  of  that  sin  are  of 
the  nature  of  punishment.  My  neighbor's  carelessness  or  sin  may 
be  the  occasion  of  suffering  to  me  ;  but  no  one  ever  dreamt  of 
expressing  didactically  that  idea,  by  saying  that  the  carelessness 

doctrine  taught  by  Pelagius ;  so  of  the  other  terms.  "When,  therefore,  it  is  said 
that  the  sermon  proposes  to  show  that  these  classes  substantially  agree,  the  only  fair 
interpretation  of  such  language  is,  that  it  proposes  to  show  that  the  characteristic 
theological  systems  thus  designated  may  be  reconciled.  Professor  Park  has  taught  us 
that  it  is  not  enough  to  express  our  meaning  clearly.  He  has  shown  that  he  would 
consider  the  above  statement  refuted,  should  he  adduce,  as  might  easily  be  done, 
many  points  in  which  he  would  admit  the  inconsistency  between  the  opinions  of 
Augustine  and  Pelagius,  the  Jansenists  and  Jesuits,  Calviuists  and  Remonstrants. 
In  our  former  article  we  said,  that  the  doctrine  that  present  strength  to  moral  and 
spiritual  duties  is  the  measure  of  obligation,  is  one  of  the  radical  principles  of  Pela- 
gianism.  He  considers  himself  as  confuting  that  statement,  by  asking  whether 
Pelagius  held  this  or  that  other  doctrine.  We  did  not  say  he  did.  What  we  did  say, 
however,  is  none  the  less  true  and  uncontradicted.  We  hope,  therefore,  no  one  will 
take  the  trouble  to  show  in  how  many  points  the  Jesuits  differed  from  the  Janse- 
nists in  morals  and  discipline,  or  oven  in  theology,  as  a  refutation  of  the  statement 
in  the  text. 


AND    THAT    OF     THE     FEELINGS.  593 

or  crime  of  a  reckless  man  was  imputed  to  his  neighbors.  There 
is  here  a  real  distinction.  These  two  modes  of  representing  our 
relation  to  Adam  belong  to  difierent  doctrinal  systems.  Accord- 
ing to  the  one,  no  man  is  condemned  until  he  has  personally 
transgressed  the  law.  Every  man  stands  a  probation  for  him- 
self, either  in  the  womb,  as  some  say,  or  in  the  first  dawn  of 
intelligence  and  moral  feeling.  According  to  the  other,  the  race 
had  their  probation  in  Adam  ;  they  sinned  in  him,  and  foil  with 
him  in  his  first  transgression.  They  are,  therefore,  born  the 
children  of  wrath  ;  they  come  into  existence  under  condemna- 
tion. It  is  now  asserted,  for  the  first  time,  so  far  as  we  know, 
since  the  world  began,  that  these  modes  of  representation  mean 
the  same  thing. 

Again,  that  the  corrupt  nature  which  we  derive  from  our 
first  parents  is  really  sinful,  is  a  difierent  doctrine  from  that 
which  is  expressed  by  saying,  our  nature  though  prone  to  sin  is 
not  itself  sinful.  These  are  not  difierent  modes  of  stating  the 
same  truth.  They  are  irreconcilable  assertions.  The  difi'erence 
between  them  is  one  which  enters  deeply  into  our  views  of  the 
nature  of  sin,  of  inability,  of  regeneration,  and  of  the  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  It  modifies  our  convictions  and  our  whole 
religious  experience.  It  has  in  fact  given  rise  to  two  difierent 
forms  of  religion  in  the  Church,  clearly  traceable  in  the  writings 
of  past  ages,  and  still  existing.  We  refer  our  readers  to  Presi- 
dent Edwards's  work  on  Original  Sin,  and  request  them  to  notice 
with  what  logical  strictness  he  demonstrates  that  the  denial  of 
the  sinfulness  of  human  nature  and  the  assertion  of  the  plenary 
power  of  men  to  obey  the  commands  of  God,  subverts  the 
whole  plan  of  redemption.  Our  author  says,  he  firmly  believes, 
"  that  in  consequence  of  the  first  man's  sin,  all  men  have  at 
birth  a  corrupt  nature,  which  exposes  them  to  sufiering,  hut  not 
to  punishment,  even  without  their  actual  transgression.'"  In 
the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  it  is  said  of 
original  sin,  or  "  depravity  of  nature,"  in  unoquoqtic  nascentium 
tram  Dei  atque  damnationem  meretur.  Are  not  these  state- 
ments in  direct  opposition  ?  Does  not  the  one  deny  what  the 
other  affirms  ?  Can  they,  by  any  candid  or  rational  interpre- 
tation, be  made  to  be  mere  different  modes  of  stating  the  same 
doctrine  ? 

'  Reply,  p.  166. 
38 


594  THE     THEOLOGY     OF     THE     INTELLECT 

These  two  systems  differ  no  less  essentially  as  to  the  doctrine 
of  ability.  According  to  the  one,  man  has,  since  the  fall,  power 
to  do  all  that  is  required  of  him.  According  to  the  other, 
though  he  remains  a  rational  creature  and  a  free  moral  agent,  he 
is  utterly  unable  either  to  turn  himself  unto  Grod,  or  to  do  any 
thing  spiritually  good.  According  to  the  one  doctrine,  respon- 
sibility and  inability  are  incompatible  ;  according  to  the  other, 
they  are  perfectly  consistent.'  Surely  these  are  not  different 
modes  of  asserting  the  same  doctrine.  The  man  who  asserts  the 
entire  helplessness  of  men,  does  not  mean  the  same  thing  with 
the  man  who  asserts  that  they  have  full  power  to  do  all  that  God 
commands.  These  systems  are  not  reconciled,  as  to  this  point, 
by  the  distinction  between  natural  and  moral  ability  ;  because 
the  point  of  separation  is  not  the  nature  but  the  fact  of  the  sin- 
ner's inability.  No  one  denies  that  this  inability  is  moral  so  far 
as  it  relates  to  moral  acts,  arises  from  the  moral  state  of  the  soul, 
and  is  removed  by  a  moral  change.  It  is,  however,  none  the  less 
real  and  absolute.  The  question  is.  What  is  the  state  of  the  un- 
renewed man  ?  Has  he  power  of  himself  to  change  his  own 
heart  ?  Can  he  by  any  act  of  the  will,  or  by  the  exercise  of  any 
conceivable  power  belonging  to  himself  transform  his  whole 
character  ?  The  one  system  says  Yes,  and  the  other  says  No. 
And  they  mean  what  they  say.  The  one  does  not,  by  the  asser- 
tion of  this  power,  mean  merely  that  men  are  rational  and  moral 
beings.  The  other  by  its  negative  answer  does  not  mean  merely 
that  men  are  unwilling  to  change  their  own  heart.  It  means 
that  the  change  is  not  within  the  power  of  the  will.  It  is  a 
change  which  no  volition,  nor  series  of  volitions,  can  effect.  It 
is  a  change  which  nothing  short  of  the  mighty  power  of  God  can 
j»roduce.  Such  is  the  plain  doctrine  of  Scripture  ;  and  such  is  the 
testimony  of  every  man's  consciousness.  If  there  is  anything  of 
which  the  sinner  has  an  intimate  conviction,  it  is  that  the  heart, 
the  affections,  his  inherent  moral  dispositions  are  beyond  his 
reach  ;  that  he  can  no  more  change  his  nature  than  he  can  an- 
nihilate it.     He  knows  that  those  who  tell  him  he  has  this  power, 

1  The  maxim  that  men  cannot  be  bound  to  do  what  they  are  unable  to  perform, 
relates  properly  to  external  acts  dependent  on  the  will ;  and  to  those  which  are  not 
adapted  to  our  nature.  No  man  is  bound  to  see  without  eyes,  hear  without  ears,  or 
work  without  hands ;  nor  can  a  creature  be  required  to  create  a  world,  nor  an  idiot 
to  reason  correctly.  But  the  maxim  has  no  more  to  do  with  the  obligations  of  moral 
agents  in  reference  to  moral  acts,  than  the  axioms  of  geometry  have. 


AND     THAT    OF    THE     FEELINGS,  595 

are  but  paltering  in  a  double  sense  and  mocking  at  his  misery. 
That  this  inability,  though  thus  absolute,  is  perfectly  consistent 
with  continued  responsibility,  is  also  a  plain  fact  of  consciousness, 
and  a  clearly  revealed  doctrine  of  Scripture.  None  feel  their 
guilt  so  much  as  those  who  are  most  sensible  of  their  helpless- 
ness. It  is,  therefore,  absurd  to  represent  the  assertion  of  this 
entire  inability  as  consistent  with  the  assertion  that  men  have 
full  power  to  do  all  that  is  required  of  them.  These  statements 
differ  in  their  ess&ntial  meaning  ;  they  differ  in  their  associated 
doctrines  ;  they  have  a  different  origin  and  they  produce  widely 
different  effects. 

Again  there  is  a  real  difference  of  doctrine  and  not  a  mere 
difference  of  terms  between  the  statement  that  Christ's  work 
opens  the  way  for  pardon  by  the  moral  impression  which  it  makes, 
and  the  statement  that  it  was  a  full  and  proper  satisfaction  to 
the  law  and  justice  of  God.  Here  again  is  a  difference  which 
affects  the  whole  scheme  of  redemption,  and  consequently  the 
whole  character  of  our  religion.  According  to  the  one  repre- 
sentation the  believer  is  simply  pardoned  and  restored  to  the 
favor  of  God  ;  according  to  the  other  he  is  justified.  When  a 
criminal  is  pardoned  and  restored  to  his  civil  rights,  does  any  one 
say,  he  is  justified  ?  The  word  justification  expresses  far  more 
than  the  remission  of  the  penalty  of  the  law  and  the  restoration 
of  the  ofiender  to  favor.  And  those  who  teach  that  the  sinner 
is  justified  by  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
teach  something  very  different  from  those  who  make  Christ's 
work  the  mere  occasion  of  good  to  his  people,  by  rendering  their 
pardon  and  restoration  to  favor  consistent  with  the  interests  of 
God's  government.  According  to  the  one  system,  the  deliver- 
ance of  the  believer  from  condemnation  is  an  act  of  a  judge  ; 
according  to  the  other,  it  is  an  act  of  the  sovereign.  In  the  one 
case,  the  law  is  set  aside  ;  in  the  other  case,  it  is  satisfied.  To 
remit  a  debt  without  payment,  out  of  compassion  for  the  debtor, 
for  the  sake  of  example,  or  out  of  regard  to  the  goodness  or 
request  of  a  third  party,  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the  dis- 
charge of  the  debtor  on  the  ground  that  full  payment  has  been 
made  in  his  behalf.  !^o  less  different  is  the  doctrine  that  Christ's 
work  renders  the  remission  of  sin  possible,  and  the  doctrine  that 
he  has  made  a  full  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  his  people.  As 
these  doctrines  are  different  in  their  nature,  so  they  differ  in 


596      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

their  effects.  The  one  gives  the  sense  of  justification,  of  that 
peace  which  arises  out  of  the  apprehension  that  our  sins  have 
been  punished,  that  justice  is  satisfied,  that  the  law  no  longer 
condemns,  but  acquits  and  pronounces  just.  If  any  man  is  un- 
able to  reconcile  this  conviction,  that  justice  no  longer  condemns 
the  believer,  with  the  most  humbling  sense  of  ill-desert,  he  must 
be  in  a  state  of  mind  very  different  from  that  which  has  char- 
acterized the  great  body  of  God's  people.  It  is  this  sense  of 
personal  ill-desert  combined  with  the  assurance  that  justice  can 
lay  nothing  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect,  when  clothed  in  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  which  produces  that  union  of  peace  with 
a  sense  of  unworthiness,  of  confidence  with  self-distrust,  of  self- 
abasement  and  self-renunciation  with  the  assurance  of  God's 
love,  which  gleams  and  burns  through  all  the  writings  of  the 
apostles,  and  which  found  utterance  in  the  devotional  language 
of  the  saints  in  all  ages.* 

'  In  reference  to  this  subject  Professor  Park  uses  the  following  language  in  his 
remarks  on  our  review.  In  regard  to  the  remark  that  Christ  has  fully  paid  the  debt 
of  sinners,  he  asks,  "Does  not  the  reviewer  himself  quahfy  this  phrase,  in  his  com- 
mon explanations  of  it?  "Why  does  he  so  often  teach  that  Christ  has  not  paid  the 
debt  of  sinners  in  any  such  sense  (which  would  be  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  phrase) 
as  to  make  it  unjust  in  God  to  demand  the  sinner's  own  payment  of  it?  Why  does 
he  teach,  that  although  the  debt  of  sinners  is  paid,  in  a  very  peculiar  sense,  yet  it  is 
not  so  paid  but  that  they  may  be  justly  cast  into  prison  until  they  themselves  have 
paid  the  uttermost  farthing  ?  Another  illustration  is,  '  the  unqualified  remark  that 
Christ  suffered  the  ivhole  punishment  which  sinners  deserve.'  And  does  not  the 
reviewer  elsewhere  thrust  in  various  modifications  of  this  phrase,  saying  Christ  did 
not  suffer  any  punishment  in  such  a  sense,  as  renders  it  unjust  for  the  entire  punish- 
ment of  the  law  to  be  still  inflicted  on  transgressors ;  that  he  did  not  sufier  the 
whole,  the  precise  eternal  punishment  which  sinners  deserve,  that  in  fact  he  did  not 
suffer  any  punishment  at  all  in  its  common  acceptation  of '  pain  inflicted  on  a  trans- 
gressor of  law  on  account  of  his  transgression,  and  for  the  purpose  of  testifying  the 
lawgiver's  hatred  of  him  aa  a  transgressor?'  "Why,  then,  does  the  reviewer  here 
represent  this  '  uuquahfied  remark'  as  identical  with  the  ambiguous  phrase  '  Christ 
bore  our  punishment,'  and  as  a  '  summation  of  the  manifold  and  diversified  repre- 
sentations of  Scripture  ?'"     Reply,  p.  162. 

It  may  sen-e  to  convince  the  author  that  there  is  a  real  difference  between  tlie  two 
systems  under  comparison,  to  be  told,  that  his  reviewer  does  hold  tliat  Christ  has 
paid  the  debt  of  sinners  in  such  a  sense  tliat  it  would  be  unjust  to  exact  its  payment 
from  those  who  believe.  The  reviewer  does  hold  that  Clnist  has  suffered  the  pun- 
ishment of  sin,  in  such  a  sense  that  it  would  be  unjust  to  exact  tliat  punishment  of 
those  who  accept  of  his  righteousness.  This  is  the  very  idea  of  justification.  Paul's 
whole  argument  is  founded  on  this  principle.  The  law  cannot  justify  those  whom  it 
condemns ;  neither  can  it  condemn  those  whom  it  justifies.  There  is  no  condemna- 
tion (no  danger  of  it,,  no  exposure  to  it)  to  those  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus.     "Who 


AND    THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS.  597 

It  is  not  necessary  to  pursue  this  comparison  further.  If 
there  be  any  power  in  language  to  express  thought ;  if  human 
speech  be  anything  more  than  an  instrument  of  deception,  then 
these  systems  of  doctrine  are  distinct  and  irreconcilable.  The 
one  asserts  what  the  other  denies.  It  would  be  easy  to  confirm 
this  conclusion  by  the  testimony  of  the  leading  advocates  of 
these  conflicting  creeds.  They  have  stated  in  a  hundred  forms 
that  they  do  not  mean  the  same  thing ;  that  the  one  class  rejects 
and  condemns  what  the  other  asserts.  It  is  then  only  by  doing 
despite  to  all  the  rules  of  historical  interpretation  that  any  man 
can  pretend  that  they  mean  substantially  the  same  thing. 

What,  then,  is  the  theory  by  which  our  author  proposes  to 
effect  the  reconciliation  of  conflicting  creeds  .^  According  to 
our  understanding  of  the  matter,  he  presents  his  theory  in  two 
very  different  forms  ;  one  is  philosophical  and  plausible,  the 
other  is  a  truism.  The  one  admits  of  discussion,  the  other  can 
be  refuted,  as  a  means  of  reconciling  creeds,  only  by  stating  it. 

shall  lay  anything  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect  ?      It  is  God  that  justifieth,  who  is 
he  that  condemneth? 

This  view  of  justification  arises  from  the  very  nature  of  substitution  and  vicarious 
punishment.  The  punishment  of  sin  is  necessary  from  the  holiness  and  justice  of 
God.  That  punishment  may,  as  we  learn  from  Scripture,  be  endured  by  one  com- 
petent to  sustain  the  load,  in  the  place  of  others.  Christ,  the  eternal  Son  of  God, 
assumed  our  nature,  took  our  place,  fulfilled  all  righteousness,  completely  obeying 
the  precept  and  enduring  the  penalty  of  the  law  as  our  substitute.  Its  demands 
were  thus  satisfied,  i.  e.,  it  has  nothing  to  demand,  as  the  ground  of  justification,  of 
those  interested  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  That  righteousness  being  imputed 
to  them  is  the  ground  in  justice  of  their  being  accepted  as  righteous  in  the  sight  of 
God.  In  themselves  they  are  hell-deserving,  to  them  their  acceptance  is  a  matter  of 
grace,  because  it  is  not  their  own  righteousness,  but  the  righteousness  of  another 
that  is  the  ground  of  their  justification.  As  this  is  the  form  in  which  this  doctrine  is 
presented  in  Scripture,so  it  has  its  foundation  in  our  own  moral  constitution.  Men 
have  a  constitutional  sense  of  justice,  an  intimate  conviction  that  sin  ought  to  be 
punished :  and  therefore  they  cannot  be  satisfied  until  such  punishment  is  inflicted. 
No  mere  pardon,  no  restoration  to  favor,  no  assurance  that  the  evil  effects  of  forgive- 
ness will  be  prevented,  can  satisfy  this  intimate  conviction.  In  all  ages,  therefore, 
men  have  demanded  an  atonement ;  and  by  atonement  they  have  not  understood  a 
means  of  moral  impression,  but  a  method  of  satisfying  justice.  As  these  means  have 
been  ineffectual,  the  sacrifices  of  the  heathen  only  serve  to  reveal  the  sentiment  to 
which  they  owe  their  origin.  But  in  the  vicarious  sufferings  of  the  Son  of  God,  in 
his  bearing  the  punishment  of  our  sins,  what  was  merely  symbolized  in  the  ancient 
sacrifices  was  fully  realized.  This  view  of  the  nature  of  Christ's  work  and  of  the 
imputation  of  his  righteousness  is  pronounced  even  in  our  day,  by  Plengstenberg, 
"  the  foundation-doctrine  of  the  gospel,  the  life-point  whence  sprung  the  Reforma 
tion."     Kkchen-Zeitung,  1836,  No.  23. 


598      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

The  one  is  this,  viz.,  that  right  feeling  may  express  itself  in 
diverse,  conflicting,  and  therefore  in  some  cases,  wrong  intellec- 
tual forms.  The  other  is,  that  figurative  language  is  not  to  be 
interpreted  literally.  It  is  the  adroit  or  unconscious  inter- 
change of  these  entirely  different  forms  of  his  theory,  that  gives 
at  once  plausibility  and  confusion  to  his  discourse.  The  fre- 
quent and  sudden  transition  from  a  principle  which  no  one 
denies,  to  one  which  no  orthodox  man  admits,  bewilders  and 
deludes  his  readers.  When  startled  by  the  fell  sweep  of  his 
theory  in  one  of  its  forms,  he  suddenly  turns  to  them  the  other, 
and  shows  them  how  perfectly  simple  and  harmless  an  affair  it 
is.  We  shall  endeavor  very  briefly  to  prove,  first,  that  the 
author  does  present  his  theory  in  both  of  the  forms  above  stated ; 
and  secondly,  that  in  the  one  form  it  is  false  and  destructive, 
and  in  the  other  nugatoiy. 

But  what  is  the  theory  which  teaches  that  right  feeling  may 
express  itself  in  diverse,  and  even  in  wrong  intellectual  forms  .'* 
The  sermon  does  not  present  any  elaborate  exposition  or  philo- 
sophical discussion  of  it.  This  was  not  to  be  expected  in  a 
popular  discourse.  In  order,  however,  to  be  properly  under- 
stood, it  is  necessary  that  it  should  be  exhibited  somewhat  in 
detail.  We  do  not  mean  to  attribute  to  Professor  Park  any 
thing  more  than  the  principle  itself,  as  above  stated  ;  we  do  not 
wish  to  be  understood  as  even  insinuating  that  he  holds  either 
its  adjuncts  or  its  consequents.  The  doctrine  is  substantially 
this.  Religion  consists  essentially  in  feeling.  It  is  not  a  form 
of  knowledge,  because  in  that  case  it  could  be  taught  like  any 
other  system  of  knowledge  ;  and  the  more  learned  on  religious 
subjects,  a  man  is,  the  more  religion  he  would  have.  Much  less 
can  it  consist  in  willing  or  acting,  because  there  is  no  moral 
excellence  either  in  volition  or  outward  action,  except  as  expres- 
sive of  feeling.  Religion  must,  therefore,  have  its  seat  in  the 
feehngs.  There  is  in  man  a  religious  sentiment,  a  sense  of 
dependence,  a  consciousness  of  relation  to  Grod.  This  gives  rise 
to  the  persuasion  that  God  is,  and  that  we  stand  in  manifold 
relations  to  him,  and  he  to  us.  This  is  faith,  i.  e.,  a  persuasion 
which  arises  out  of  feehng,  and  which  derives  from  that  source 
its  contents  and  its  power.'     This  is  a  form  of  intuition,  a  direct 

'  TwesterCs  Dogmatik,  p.  20.      Glaube  ist  viberhaupt  ein  auf  dem  Gefiihle  beru- 
hendes  Furwahrhalten. 


AND     THAT     OF    THE     FEELINGS.  599 

vision  of  its  object ;  apprehending,  however,  that  it  is,  lather 
than  either  lioiu  or  why  it  is.  To  this  follows  knowledge.  That 
is,  the  cognitive  faculty,  the  understanding,  the  logical  con- 
sciousness, or  whatever  else  it  may  be  called,  makes  the  intu- 
itions included  in  faith  the  objects  of  consideration,  interprets 
and  defines  them,  and  thus  transmutes  them  into  definite 
thoughts.  Of  the  materials  thus  furnished  it  constructs  the- 
ology. In  every  system  of  theology,  therefore,  there  are  these 
elements,  feeling,  faith,  knowledge,  science.  The  two  former 
may  be  the  same  where  the  two  latter  are  very  different.  Hence 
feeling  and  faith  may  retain  their  true  Christian  character  even 
when  they  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  philosophical  convic- 
tions of  the  mind  in  which  they  exist.'  This  provides  for  the 
case  of  the  "  tearful  German"  mentioned  by  Professor  Park,  who 
was  a  Christian  in  his  heart,  but  a  philosopher  (i.e.  in  this  con- 
nexion an  infidel)  in  his  head.  Further,  with  the  same  religious 
feeling  and  faith  there  may  be  very  different  theologies  ;  because 
the  interpretation  given  to  the  intuitions  of  faith  are,  to  a  great 

'  This  however  is  true  only  within  certain  limits.  Tioeaten,  p.  30.  Zwar  han- 
gen  Gefiihl  und  Glaube  nicht  schlechterdings  von  den  Bestimmungen  des  Wissens 
ab ;  sie  fiihren  ja  selbst  ihren  Gehalt  und  ilire  Sicherheit  mit  sich,  und  man  wird 
sich  mancherley  Gegenstiinde  des  religiosen  "Wissens  denken  konnen,  die  verschie- 
dene  Ansiditen  zulassen,  ohne  dass  dadurch  der  religiose  und  christliche  Character 
des  frommen  Bewusstseyns  verandert  wird.  Diess  gelit  aber  doeh  nur  bis  zu  einem 
gewissen  Punct.  *  *  *  Obgleich  also  die  Religion  weder  Erkenntniss  ist,  noch 
von  der  Erkenntniss  ausgeht,  so  verhalt  sie  sich  doch  nicht  gleichgiiltig  gegen 
dieselbe,  und  es  ist  z.  B.  fiir  den  religiosen  Glauben  nicht  einerley,  ob  wir  aus  wis- 
senschaftlichen  Griinden  meinen,  behaupten  oder  leugnen  zu  mvissen,  dasa  der 
Mensch  unsterblich  sey. 

Twesten  belongs  to  the  most  moderate  and  orthodox  class  of  Schleiermacher's  dis- 
ciples. The  master  carried  this  matter  much  further,  "  Ja  nach  Schleiermacher," 
says  his  interpreter,  Gess,  "  konnen  sich  religiose  Gefiihle  sogar  mit  solchen  Be- 
grlffen  einigen,  welche  sich  unter  einander  widersprechen.  So  heisst  es  (Reden 
p.  112:)  es  gebe  zwei  verschiedene  Vorstellungen  von  Gott,  eine,  die  ihn  den  Men- 
schen  ahnlich  mache,  und  eine,  die  ihn  nicht  als  personlich  denkend  und  wollend 
denke,  sondern  als  die  iiber  alle  Personlichkeit  hinausgestellte  allgemeine,  alles  Den- 
ken und  Seyn  hervorbringende  Nothwendigkeit.  Welche  von  beiden  die  richtige 
sey,  daran  liege  dem  Gefiihle  nichts — '  sondern  fromm  kann  jeder  seyn,  er  halte  sich 
zu  diesera  oder  zu  jenem  Begriffe;  aber  seine  Prommigkeit  muss  besser  seyn,  als 
sein  BegriS".  Und  nichts  scheint  sich  weniger  zu  ziemen,  als  wenn  die  Anhiinger 
der  Eiuen  die,  welche  von  der  Menseheniilmlichkeit  abgeschreckt,  ihro  Zuflucht  zu 
dem  Andern  nehmen,  beschuldigen,  sie  geyen  gottlos;  oder  ebenso,  wenn  diese 
wollten  jene  wegen  der  Menscheniihnhclikeit  ihres  Begriffes  des  Gotzendienstes 
beschuldigen  und  ihre  Prommigkeit  fiir  nichtig  erklaren.'  Gess's  Schleiermach. 
System,  p.  21 


600      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

extent,  determined  by  the  philosophy,  the  knowledge,  cultiva- 
tion, prejudices  and  spirit  of  the  individual,  and  of  the  age  or 
church  to  which  he  belongs.  There  is,  therefore,  no  one  Christian 
theology  which  can  be  pronounced  true  to  the  exclu?ion  of  all 
others.  Different  theologies  are  different  forms  of  expressing 
or  of  interpreting  the  same  religious  sentiment.  They  are  all 
true.'  As  the  force  of  vegetable  life  manifests  itself  in  the 
greiatest  diversity  of  forms  and  in  very  different  degrees  of  per- 
fection, so  Christianity,  which  is  also  a  power,  manifests  itself  in 
various  forms  of  faith,  which  are  all  to  be  recognized  as  expres- 
sions of  a  genuine  Christian  consciousness.  If  religion  were  a 
form  of  knowledge,  if  Christianity  consisted  in  certain  doctrines, 
or  bad  Christ's  immediate  object  been  to  set  forth  a  theological 
system,  there  could  be  no  room  for  such  diversity  ;  there  could 
be  only  one  true  theology.'^  But  revelation  is  not  a  maldng 
known  a  series  of  propositions.  So  far  as  it  is  an  act  of  God, 
it  is  the  arrangements  and  dispensations  by  which  he  awakens 
and  elevates  the  religious  consciousness  of  men  ;  and  so  far  as 
it  regards  the  recipients,  it  is  the  intuition  of  the  truth  conse- 
quent on  this  elevation  of  their  religious  feelings.  And  inspira- 
tion is  the  state  of  mind,  the  elevation  of  the  religious  conscious- 
ness, to  which  this  immediate  perception  of  the  truth  is  due.  It 
follows  from  all  this  that  the  Scriptures,  great  as  is  their  value, 
are  only  in  an  indirect  sense  the  rule  of  faith.  They  contain  the 
record  of  the  apprehension  of  divine  things  consequent  on  the 
extraordinary  religious  life  communicated  to  the  world  by  Jesus 
Christ ;  and  although  they  have  a  certain  normal  authority  as 
the  expression  of  a  very  pure  and  elevated  state  of  religious 

'  Twesten,  p.  35.  Aber  so  viel  ist  doch  klar,  dass  es  hiernach  nieht  bloss  eine 
christliche  Dogmatik  giebt,  die  ausgenommen  alle  iibrigen  geradezu  unchristlich 
waren,  sondorn  dass  verscbiedene  dogmatische  Systeme  auf  den  Nameu  der  cbrist- 
lichen  Anspmcb  macheu  konnen.  *  *  *  Gleich  wie  die  Lebenskriifte  der  Natur  in 
einer  grosson  Mannigfaltigkeit  von  Erscheinungen  bervortreten,  verschieden  nach 
dor  Art  und  Stufe  ihrer  Entwickebing,  doch  alio  Aeusserungen  derselben  Krafte : 
Kraft  des  gottlicheu  Lebens  ist,  in  eiuer  Fiille  verschiedener  Glanbensformen  offen- 
baren,  die  siimmtlich  Formen  dos  christlichen  Lebens  und  Bewusstseyns  sind. 

'-  Tioesten,  p.  33.  Bestande  die  Religion  nun  zunachst  in  einer  Lehre,  und  ware 
Christi  nacbste  Absicbt  gewesen,  ein  system  von  Dogmen  aufzustellen ;  so  konnten 
wir  nicbt  umhin,  uns  zu  der  einen  oder  der  andorn  Meinung  zu  sehlagen, — that  is, 
he  must,  in  the  case  supposed,  admit  that  the  Lutheran  system  was  the  only  Biblical 
and  Christian  system,  or  more  or  less  opposed  to  it.  There  could  iu  that  case  be 
but  one  true  system. 


AND    THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS.  601 

feeling,  still  of  necessity  that  expression  was  greatly  modified 
by  the  previous  culture  of  the  sacred  writers.  In  other  words, 
the  form  in  which  they  presented  these  truths,  or  the  interpreta- 
tion which  they  gave  to  their  religious  intuitions  was  influenced 
by  their  education,  their  modes  of  thought,  and  by  the  whole 
spirit  of  their  age.'  Our  faith,  therefore,  is  only  indirectly 
founded  on  Scripture.  Its  immediate  basis  is  our  own  religious 
consciousness,  awakened  and  elevated  by  the  Scriptures,  and  by 
the  life  wliich,  proceeding  from  Christ,  dwells  in  the  church. 
The  simple,  historical  interpretation  of  the  sacred  writings  does 
aot  give  us  the  divine  element  of  the  truth  therein  contained  ; 
it  gives  us  the  temporary  logical  or  intellectual  form  in  which 
that  divine  element  is  embodied.  But  that  form,  in  the  progress 
of  the  church,  may  have  become  obsolete.  The  theology  of  an 
age  dies  with  the  age.  The  race  passes  on.  It  is  making  con- 
stant jjrogress.  Not  only  is  the  scientific  element,  which  enters 
into  every  system  of  theology,  becoming  more  correct,  but  the 
religious  consciousness  of  the  church  is  getting  more  pure  and 
elevated  ;  and,  therefore,  a  theology  suited  to  one  age  becomes 
very  unsuitable  to  another.^ 

Such,  to  the  best  of  our  understanding  of  the  matter,  is  the 
theory  to  which  the  radical  principle  of  Professor  Park's  ser- 
mon belongs.  To  understand  that  principle,  it  was  necessary 
to  have  some  idea  of  the  system  of  which  it  is  a  part.  We  re- 
peat, however,  what  we  have  already  said,  viz  :  that  we  attrib- 

'  Twesten,  p.  36.  Vergegenwcirtigen  wir  uns  den  Apostel  Paulus,  uach  seiner 
Nationalitixt  und  Bildung,  nach  dem  Ideenkreise,  in  dem  er  erzogen  war,  der  Art 
der  Gelehrsamheit,  die  er  sicli  angeeignet  hatte,  dann  nach  seiner  Stellung  in  der 
apostolischen  Kirche,  den  Ilinderuissen,  die  er  zu  beseitigen,  den  Gegnern,  die  er  zu 
bekampfen  hatte:  konnte  diess  ohne  Einfluss  bleiben  auf  die  Art,  wie  er  das 
Christenthum  auffasste  und  vortrag,  und  musste  es  nicht,  von  allem  Andern  abge- 
sehen,  seiner  Lelire  ein  anderes  Geprage  geben,  als  sie  aueb  bey  innerer  Geistes- 
verwandtschaft  und  unter  ahulichen  Uinstanden  z.  B.  bey  einem  Luther  habeu 
konnte,  der  nicht  in  der  Schule  Gamaliels,  sondern  der  Scholastik  gebildet  war,  und 
nicht  Juden  aus  den  Geschichten  und  Andeutungen  des  Alten,  sondern  Papstler 
aus  den  Lehren  des  Neuen  Testaments  von  todten  Werken  zura  lebendigen 
Glauben  fidiren  sollte  ? 

2  MorreWs  Philosophy  of  Religion,  p.  223.  "  The  inevitable  result  of  this  is,  that 
those  who  take  their  stand  pertinaciously  upon  the  formal  theology  of  any  given 
period,  remain  stationary,  as  it  were,  in  the  religious  consciousness  of  this  period, 
while  that  of  the  age  goes  far  beyond  them,  that  their  theology  is  no  longer  an 
adequate  exponent  of  the  religious  life  of  the  times,  and  no  longer  satisfies  its  just 
demands." 


602  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    INTELLECT 

ute  to  our  author  nothing  more  than  he  has  avowed.  We  do 
not  say,  and  we  do  not  know,  that  he  holds  the  theory  above 
stated  in  any  of  its  steps  beyond  the  j^rinciple  that  right  feeling 
may  express  itself  in  diverse,  inconsistent,  and  therefore,  at 
times,  erroneous  intellectual  forms.  That  he  does  teach  this 
principle,  and  that  it  is  one  aspect  of  the  theory  by  which  he 
proposes  to  reconcile  "  all  allowable  creeds,"  we  think  plain,  in 
the  first  place,  from  the  formal  statements  of  his  doctrine.  The 
sermon  from  beginning  to  end  treats  of  two  theologies,  which 
difier  in  form,  ?'.  e.  in  their  intellectual  statements,  but  have  a 
common  principle.  Both  are,  therefore,  allowable,  because  they 
are  only  different  expressions  of  the  same  thing.  It  is  a  matter 
of  perfect  indifference  whether  these  are  called  two  theologies, 
or  two  modes  of  expressing  one  and  the  same  theology.  The 
difference  between  them  in  either  case  is  the  same.'  "  Some- 
times," says  our  author,  "  both  the  mind  and  the  heart  are  suited 
by  the  same  modes  of  thought,  but  often  they  require  dissimilar 
methods,  and  the  object  of  the  present  discourse  is,  to  state 
some  of  the  differences  between  the  theology  of  the  intellect 
and  that  of  the  feeling,  and  also  some  of  the  influences  which 
they  exert  upon  each  other,"  p.  534.  "  The  theology  of  feeling 
differs  from  that  of  the  intellect.  It  is  the  form  of  belief  which 
is  suggested  by,  and  adapted  to  the  wants  of  the  well-trained 
heart.  It  is  embraced  as  involving  the  substance  of  truth, 
although,  when  literally  interpreted,  it  may  or  may  not  be  false," 
p.  535.     "  In  the  theology  of  reason,  the  progress  of  science  has 

*  One  of  the  complaints  against  us,  which  Professor  Park  urges  most  frequently,  is 
that  we  misrepresent  him  as  teaching  two  "kinds  of  theology,"  instead  of  "two  dif- 
ferent forms"  of  one  and  the  same  theology.  After  many  iterations  of  this  complaint, 
he  loses  his  patience,  and  asks,  "  "Will  the  reviewer  never  distinguish  between  two 
doctrines,  and  the  same  doctrine  expressed  in  two  forms?"  We  are  afraid  not. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  difference  between  the  two  statements,  except  in  words. 
There  are  no  doctrines  so  wide  apart,  but  that  some  general  truth  may  be  found  of 
which  they  are  but  different  forms.  Atheism  is  one  form,  and  Theism  is  another 
form  of  the  one  doctrine,  that  the  universe  had  a  cause.  The  Socinian  and  the 
church  exhibition  of  the  design  of  Christ's  death,  are  but  different  forms  of  the  one 
doctrme,  that  we  are  saved  by  Christ.  It  is  therefore  perfectly  immaterial  whether 
Professor  Park  teaches  that  there  are  "  two  theologies,"  or  "  two  forms  of  one  and 
the  same  theology."  His  readers  understand  the  former  expression  precisely  as  they 
do  the  latter,  after  all  his  explanations.  The  former  is  the  more  correct,  and  has 
the  usage  of  all  ages  in  its  favor.  One  great  difficulty  in  regard  to  this  sermon  is, 
that  its  author  wishes  to  change  the  established  meaning  of  terms,  and  call  new 
things  by  old  words. 


AND    THAT    OF    THE     FEELINGS.  603 

antiquated  some,  and  will  continue  to  modify  other  refinements  ; 
theory  has  chased  theory  into  the  shades  ;  but  the  theology  of 
the  heart,  letting  the  minor  accuracies  go  for  the  sake  of  hold- 
ing strongly  upon  the  substance  of  doctrine,  need  not  always 
accommodate  itself  to  scientific  changes,  but  may  use  its  old 
statements,  even  if,  when  literally  understood,  they  be  incorrect," 
p.  539.  "  Our  theme,"  he  says,  "  reveals  the  identity  in  the 
essence  of  many  systems  which  are  run  in  scientific  or  assthetic 
moulds  unlike  each  other."  "  There  are,  indeed,  kinds  of  the- 
ology which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  each  other."  p.  559. 
"  Another  practical  lesson  developed  in  this  discourse  is,  the 
importance  of  exhibiting  the  mutual  consistency  between  all 
the  expressions  of  right  feeling,"  p.  137.  We  see  not  how  these 
and  many  similar  declarations  are  to  be  understood,  otherwise 
than  as  teaching  that  the  intellectual  forms  under  which  right 
feeling  expresses  itself,  may  be,  and  often  are  diverse  and  incon- 
sistent. The  difference  is  not  that  between  literal  and  figura- 
tive language,  but  between  systems  run  in  different  scientific 
moulds.  The  intellectual  forms  of  doctrine  may  change,  theory 
may  succeed  theory,  but  the  feelings  may  adhere  to  these  anti- 
quated forms,  and  continue  to  express  themselves  in  modes 
which  the  reason  pronounces  to  be  false. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  a  large  class  of  the  illustrations 
employed  by  our  author,  puts  this  matter  out  of  all  doubt. 
•  They  are  instances  not  of  figurative,  imaginative,  or  intense 
expressions,  but  of  purely  intellectual  and  doctrinal  statements. 
This  we  have  already  abundantly  proved.  That  the  sin  of  Adam 
is  imputed  to  his  posterity,  that  they  are  condemned  for  that 
sin,  that  its  consequences  to  them  are  of  the  nature  of  punish- 
ment is  a  different  doctrine  from  that  expressed  by  saying  we 
are  exposed  to  evil  in  consequence  of  that  sin.  That  inherent 
depravity  is  truly  and  properly  sin,  is  a  different  intellectual 
proposition  from  the  statement  that  it  is  not  properly  sin.  That 
no  mere  man  since  the  fall  is  able  perfectly  to  keep  the  com- 
mandments of  God,  is  a  different  doctrine  from  that  asserted 
by  saying,  that  God  never  requires  of  us  more  than  we  are  able 
to  perform.  These  statements  suppose  different  theories  of  moral 
obligation,  of  moral  agency,  and  of  the  freedom  of  the  will. 
So  too,  the  propositions,  Christ  bore  the  penalty  of  the  law,  his 
sufferings  were  of  the  nature  of  punishment,  he  fully  satisfied 


604      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

the  demands  of  the  law  and  justice  of  God,  are  recognized 
forms  of  stating  a  doctrine  concerning  the  atonement,  which  has 
ever  heen  held  to  be  incompatible  with  the  governmental  or 
Socinian  theory  of  the  nature  of  Christ's  work.  As  these  and 
others  of  a  like  kind  are  included  in  the  author's  illustrations 
of  his  theory,  they  prove  beyond  doubt  that  his  theory  is  that 
right  feeling  may  express  itself  in  diverse  and  inconsistent  intel- 
lectual forms.  It  matters  not  what  name  he  may  give  it.  It  is 
the  precise  doctrine  of  those  who  hold  that  the  different  systems 
of  theology  are  not  to  be  distinguished  as  true  and  false,  but  as 
different  interpretations  of  the  same  genuine  Christian  con- 
sciousness ;  or  that  right  feeling  may  express  itself  in  incompat- 
ible intellectual  forms.'  This  is  the  philosophical,  grave,  and 
plausible  aspect  of  our  author's  theory.  He  presents  the  matter, 
however,  in  another  and  very  different  light. 

The  second  form  in  which  the  doctrine  of  the  sermon  is  pre- 
sented, is  that  figurative  language  is  not  to  be  interpreted 
literally,  that  poetry  is  not  to  be  treated  as  prose  !  This,  as  a 
device  for  reconciling  "  all  allowable  creeds,"  as  we  said  above, 
needs  no  refutation  beyond  the  statement  of  it.  That  our  author 
does  run  down  his  theory  to  this  "  infinite  little,"  is  plain  both 
from  his  exposition  and  illustration  of  his  doctrine..  The  emotive 
theology  may,  he  says,  be  called  i)oetry,  "  if  this  word  be  used, 
as  it  should  be,  to  include  the  constitutional  developments  of  a 
heart  moved  to  its  depths  by  the  truth.  And  as  in  its  essence  it 
is  poetical,  with  this  meaning  of  the  epithet,  so  it  avails  itself  of 
a  poetic  license,  and  indulges  in  a  style  of  remark,  which^  for 
sober  prose,  would  be  unbecoming,  or  even,  when  associated  in 
certain  ways,  irreverent."^  Being  poetical  in  its  nature,  the 
theology  of  feeling  is  better  adapted  to  the  hymn-book  than  to 
creeds.  He  ascribes  a  great  deal  of  mischief  to  the  introduction 
of  the  language  of  poetry  into  doctrinal  symbols.  Men,  he  says, 
will  never  find  peace  "  until  they  confine  their  intellect  to  its 

'  When  tho  writers,  to  whom  we  have  referred,  represent  conflictuTg  systems  of 
theology  as  ahke  true,  they  of  course  mean  that  there  is  a  higher  view  which  em- 
braces and  harmonizes  them  all;  that  they  are  different  aspects  of  the  same  general 
truth;  and  further,  that  they  have  a  common  element,  which  is  differently  com- 
bined in  these  several  systems.  They  would  accept  Professor  Park's  statement  of 
the  identity  in  essence  of  systems  run  in  different  scientific  moulds,  or  of  "  the 
mutual  consistency  of  all  the  expressions  of  right  feeling,''  as  a  proper  expression 
of  their  doctrine.  *  Sermon,  p.  638. 


AND    THAT     OF     THE    FEELINGS.  605 

rightful  sphere,  and  understand  it  according  to  what  it  says,  and 
their  feeling  to  its  province,  and  interpret  its  language  according 
to  what  it  means,  rendering  to  poetry  the  things  which  are  de- 
signed for  poeiry,  and  unto  prose  that  which  belongs  to  prose.'" 
''Our  theme"  i.e.  the  theme  discussed  in  the  sermon,  he  says, 
"  grieves  us  by  disclosing  the  ease  with  which  we  may  slide  into 
grave  errors.  Such  errors  have  arisen  from  so  simple  a  cause  as 
that  of  confounding  poetry  with  prose.'"  The  emotive  theology, 
as  appears  from  these  statements,  is  poetry.  It  is  the  poetic 
exhibition  of  doctrines.  The  conflicts  of  theologians  arise,  in  a 
measure,  from  their  not  recognizing  this  fact.  They  interpret 
these  poetic  forms  as  though  they  were  the  sober  and  wary  lan- 
guage of  prose.  He  sustains  the  doctrine  of  the  sermon,  in  this 
view  of  it,  by  quotations  from  Blair,  Campbell,  Burke,  and  even 
a  certain  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Komans.  "  In 
accordance  with  these  simple  principles,"  he  says,  "  not  dug  out 
of  the  depths  of  G-erman  metaphysics,  but  taken  from  the  surface 
of  Blair's  Khetoric,  the  sermon  under  review  describes  the  theol- 
ogy of  feeling  as  introducing  obscure  images,  vague  and  indefi- 
nite representations.""  The  doctrine  of  the  discourse,  therefore, 
is  the  perfectly  harmless  truism  that  poetry  is  not  prose,  and 
tlierefore  is  not  to  be  interpreted  as  though.it  were.  Accordingly 
he  asks  the  commentator  referred  to,  how  it  happens,  that  when 
he  "  comes  to  criticise  a  New  England  sermon,  he  should  forget 
the  rhetorical  principles  with  which  he  was  once  familiar."* 
These  representations  present  the  author's  theory  as  a  simple 
rhetorical  principle,  which  no  one  denies. 

A  large  class  of  the  illustrations  of  the  doctrine  of  the  sermon 
are  adapted  to  this  view  of  the  case.  Passages  of  Scripture, 
which  speak  of  men  as  hiding  under  Jehovah's  wings,  which  rep- 
resent God  as  jealous  or  angry  ;  which  speak  of  him  as  a  rock  or 
high  tower  ;  or  which  describe  him  as  armed  with  sword  and 
buckler  ;  the  figurative  language  of  our  hymn-books,  which  speaks 
of  God's  burning  throne,  his  smiling  face,  his  open  arms  ;  the 
intense  and  hyperbolical  language  of  emotion,  as  when  the 
Psalmist  says,  I  am  a  worm  and  no  man  ;  and  when  the  sinner 
says,  I  am  less  than  nothing,  are  all  cited  as  illustrations  of  the 
principle  contended  for.     There  can,  therefore,  be  no  doubt,  that 

'  Sermon,  p.  554.  '  Sermon,  p.  558. 

3  Reply,  p.  158.  *  Reply,  p.  160. 


606      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

one  aspect  of  our  author's  theory  is  that  poetry  is  not  to  be  in- 
terpreted as  though  it  were  prose.  But  is  this  the  only  aspect 
of  his  doctrine  ?  Was  it  with  this  penny- whistle  he  discoursed 
such  music  as  stole  away  the  senses  of  a  Boston  audience  ? 
When  he  stood  up  as  a  vates  p^'oescius  venturi,  to  foretell  the 
blending  of  all  creeds  into  one  colorless  ray,  and  to  predict  the 
end  of  religious  controversy,  was  Blair's  Rhetoric  the  source  of 
his  inspiration  ?  Did  he  persuade  the  shrewd  Athenians  of 
America,  that  it  was  a  feasible  matter  to  interpret  the  West- 
minster Confession  as  a  poem,  and  that  men  never  would  have 
peace  until  that  feat  was  accomplished  ?  Such  is  the  modest 
interpretation  which  he  gives  his  "  humble  convention  sermon," 
We  entertain  for  it  a  much  higher  opinion.  We  believe  it  teaches 
something  more  than  lies  on  the  surface  of  the  Scotch  Principal's 
dull  lectures.  If  it  does  not,  then  we  grudge  the  ink — worth  less 
than  a  farthing — we  have  spent  in  writing  about  it.' 

It  is  the  principle  that  right  feeling  may  express  itself  in 
wrong  intellectual  forms,  incorrect  and  dangerous  as  that  prin- 
ciple is,  that  gives  dignity  and  importance  to  the  sermon  under 
review.  This  is  a  grave  matter.  The  theory  with  which  it  is 
connected  is  not  to  be  treated  lightly.  It  has  been  elaborated 
with  so  much  skill,  sustained  by  so  much  power,  and  adopted  by 
so  many  leading  minds,  that  it  deserves  the  most  serious  examin- 
ation. It  would  be  a  very  important  service  if  some  competent 
hand  would  undertake  such  a  scrutiny,  and  philosophically  dis- 
cuss the  various  points  which  the  theory  in  question  involves, 
separating  the  warp  of  truth  from  the  woof  of  error  in  its  compli- 
cated texture.  No  one  can  read  even  the  bald  outline  of  that 
theory  as  given  above,  without  feeling  its  power,  and  seeing  that 
there  is  an  element  of  truth  in  it  which  gives  it  a  dangerous 
plausibility.     We  must  leave  such  an  examination,  however,  to 

'  Yet  the  author  seoms  to  labor  through  this  whole  reply  to  persuade  his  readers 
that  this  is  all  he  meant.  This  is  the  source  of  his  retorts  and  sarcasms.  "  Do  you 
hold  that  God  is  a  rock,  or  that  he  came  from  Teman  ?  Do  you  forget  your  own 
principle,  that  figurative  expressions  are  not  to  be  taken  according  to  the  letter  ? 
What  pitiable  logomachy  then  is  it,  to  contend  about  doctrinal  discrepancies.  Can- 
not is  only  another  form  of  will  not ;  sinful  is  only  a  figure  for  "  not  sinful."  If  we 
all  admit  we  are  saved  by  Christ,  what  is  the  use  of  disputing  how  ho  sa.ves  us  ? 
We  are  all  agreed,  if  we  did  but  know  it.  You  say  the  thing  figuratively,  I  say  the 
same  thing  literally ;  I  mean  just  what  you  mean,  mean  what  you  please,  (within 
allowable  limits.") 


AND     THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS.  607 

those  whom  God  calls  to  the  work.  We  have  an  humbler  office. 
There  are  two  methods  of  dealing  with  a  false  theory.  The  one 
is,  the  refutation  of  its  principles  ;  the  other  is,  to  show  that  its 
admitted  results  are  in  conflict  with  established  truths.  The 
latter  is  much  the  shorter,  and  generally  much  the  more  satis- 
factory, as  it  is  the  common  scriptural  method  of  dealing  with 
error.  We  propose,  therefore,  simply  to  indicate  one  or  two 
points  in  which  the  theory,  one  of  whose  principles  our  author 
has  adopted,  stands  in  conflict  with  the  Bible. 

In  the  first  place  the  radical  principle  of  the  theory,  viz.,  that 
religion  consists  essentially  in  feeling,  is  contrary  to  the  scrip- 
tural doctrine  on  the  subject,  and  is  opposed  to  what  the  Bible 
teaches  of  the  importance  of  truth.  According  to  Scripture, 
religion  is  not  a  blind  feeling,  desire,  or  emotion,  but  it  is  a  form 
of  knowledge.  It  is  the  spiritual  discernment  of  divine  things. 
The  knowledge,  which  in  the  Bible  is  declared  to  be  eternal,  or 
spiritual  life,  is  not  the  mere  intellectual,  or  speculative  appre- 
hension of  the  truth  ;  but  such  apprehension  is  one  of  its  essen- 
tial elements,  and  therefore  of  true  religion.  No  man  can  have 
the  spiritual  discernment  of  any  truth  which  he  does  not  know. 
The  intellectual  cognition  is  just  as  necessary  to  spiritual  knowl- 
edge as  the  visual  perception  of  a  beautiful  object  is  to  the  appre- 
hension of  its  beauty.  Men  cannot  be  made  religious  by  mere 
instruction,  but  they  cannot  be  religious  without  it.  Eehgion 
includes  the  knowledge,  i.  e.  the  intellectual  apprehension  of 
divine  things,  as  one  of  its  essential  elements,  without  which  it 
cannot  exist.  And  therefore  it  is  often  called  knowledge.  Hence, 
to  know  God,  is  the  sum  of  all  religion.  The  vision  of  the  glory 
of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  the  vital  principle  of  inward 
Christianity.  Hence  throughout  the  Bible,  the  knowledge  of 
God,  wisdom,  understanding,  and  words  of  like  import,  are  used 
as  designations  of  true  religion.  Ayith  sj)iritual  discernment  is  in- 
separably connected  a  feeling  corresponding  to  the  nature  of  the 
object  apprehended.  This  is  so  intimately  united  with  the  cogni- 
tion as  to  be  an  attribute  of  it — having  no  separate  existence,  and 
being  inconceivable  without  it.  And  it  is  to  the  two  as  insepa- 
rably united  that  the  name  of  religion  properly  belongs.  Neither 
the  cognition  without  the  feeling,  nor  the  feeling  without  the 
cognition  completes  the  idea  of  religion.  It  is  the  complex  state 
of  mind  in  which  those  elements  are  inseparably  blended,  so  as 


608      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

to  form  one  glowing,  intelligent  apprehension  of  divine  things, 
which  constitutes  spiritual  life.  But  in  this  complex  state  the 
cognition  is  the  first  and  the  governing  element,  to  which  the 
other  owes  its  existence  ;  and  therefore,  in  the  second  place,  the 
Scriptures  not  only  teach  that  knowledge  is  an  essential  constit- 
uent of  religion,  but  also  that  the  objective  presentation  of  truth 
to  the  mind  is  absolutely  necessary  to  any  genuine  religious  feel- 
ing or  aifection.  It  is  by  the  truth  as  thus  outwardly  presented, 
tliat  the  inward  state  of  mind,  which  constitutes  religion,  is  pro- 
duced. We  are  begotten  by  the  truth.  We  are  sanctified  by 
the  truth.  It  is  by  the  exhibition  of  the  truth,  that  the  inward 
life  of  the  soul  is  called  into  being  and  into  exercise.  This  is  the 
agency  which  the  Spirit  of  God  employs  in  the  work  of  conver- 
sion and  sanctification.  Hence  truth  is  essential  to  the  salvation 
of  men.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  indifference  what  men  believe,  or 
in  what  form  right  feeling  expresses  itself  There  can  be  no 
rignt  feeling  but  what  is  due  to  the  apprehension  of  truth. 
Hence  Christ  commissioned  his  disciples  to  teach.  The  Church 
was  made  the  teacher  of  the  nations  ;  she  has  ever  regarded  her- 
self as  the  witness  and  guardian  of  the  truth.  Heresy  she  has 
repudiated,  not  as  an  insult  to  her  authority,  but  as  destructive 
of  her  life. 

Is  not  this  scriptural  view  of  the  relation  between  knowledge 
and  feeling,  confirmed  by  consciousness  and  experience  ?  Is 
not  the  love  of  God  intelligent  ?  Is  it  not  complacency  in  the 
divine  character  as  intellectually  apprehended  ?  Does  not  the 
love  of  Christ  suppose  the  knowledge  of  Christ  ?  Can  the  man 
who  looks  upon  him  as  a  creature,  feel  toward  him  as  God 
manifest  in  the  flesh  ?  Can  the  feeling  which  has  for  its  object 
the  Son  of  God  bearing  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  cross,  be 
the  same  as  that  which  regards  him  as  an  amiable  martyr  ? 
Repentance,  faith,  love,  reverence,  gratitude,  every  affection  and 
exercise  which  enters  into  true  religion,  our  own  consciousness 
tells  us,  derives  its  character  and  owes  its  existence  to  knowledge, 
to  the  intelligent  apprehension  of  the  truth  as  revealed  in  the 
word  of  God.  The  history  of  the  w^orld  is  a  continued  illustra- 
tion of  the  truth,  that  inward  character  depends  on  knowledge. 
This  is  one  of  the  great  principles  of  Protestantism  ;  and  there- 
fore Protestants  have  ever  been  the  advocates  of  religious  instruc- 
tion.    It  is  a  purely  Romish  doctrine,  that  "  Religious  light  is 


AND    THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS.  609 

intellectual  darkness."'  Knowledge,  according  to  Protestants,  is 
one  of  the  elements  of  faith,  without  which  it  cannot  exist.  It 
includes  assent  to  some  known  truth.  In  the  one  church,  there- 
fore, truth  has  a  paramount  importance  ;  in  the  other  ignorance 
is  regarded  as  the  mother  of  devotion.  If  a  man  trust  in  the 
cross,  the  Komish  system  tells  him  he  need  not  know  what  the 
cross  means.  It  matters  not  whether  he  thinks  he  is  saved  by 
the  wood  of  the  cross,  by  the  magic  influence  of  the  sign,  or  by 
Christ  as  crucified  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  These  are  different 
expressions  of  the  feeling  of  confidence.  A  distinguished  Unita- 
rian clergyman  once  said  to  us,  that  there  was  no  difference 
between  his  doctrine  as  to  the  method  of  salvation  and  that  of 
the  orthodox.  Both  believe  that  we  are  saved  through  Christ, 
and  even  by  his  death.  The  one  says  how  this  is  done  ;  the 
other  leaves  the  manner  unexplained.  The  general  truth  both 
receive.  The  difierence  is  not  a  difference  of  doctrine,  but  of  the 
mode  or  form  in  which  the  same  doctrine  is  presented. 

In  opposition  to  the  scriptural  doctrine  on  the  subject,  the 
theory  under  consideration  teaches  that  religion  consists  in  feel- 
ing, as  distinguished  from  knowledge,  and  that  it  is  in  a  great 
measure  independent  of  it.  In  tlie  extreme  form  in  which  this 
doctrine  is  presented  by  its  great  master,  it  is  immaterial,  so  far 
as  religion  is  concerned,  whether  a  man  be  a  Pantheist  or  Theist; 
whether  he  regards  God  as  a  mere  force,  of  which  neither  intelli- 
gence nor  moral  excellence  can  be  predicated,  or  as  a  spirit,  in- 
finite in  his  being,  wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness  and 
truth.  And  even  in  the  more  moderate  form,  in  which  it  is  set 
forth  by  some  of  his  followers,  truth  is  of  subordinate  importance. 
As  the  essence  of  religion  is  feeling,  it  may  exist  under  very  dif- 
ferent intellectual  forms,  and  find  expression  in  conflicting  sys- 
tems of  doctrine.  Both,  therefore,  as  to  the  nature  of  religion, 
and  as  to  the  importance  of  truth,  there  is  a  vital  difference 
between  this  theory  and  the  teachings  of  the  word  of  God. 

Secondly,  this  theory  subverts  the  doctrine  of  a  divine  revela- 
tion, in  the  correct  and  commonly  received  sense  of  those  terms. 
Revelation  is  the  communication  of  truth  by  God  to  the  under- 
standings of  men.  It  makes  known  doctrines.  For  example,  it 
makes  known  that  God  is;  that  God  is  a  spirit ;  that  he  is  infin- 
ite ;  that  he  is  holy,  just,  and  good ;   that  Christ  is  the  Son  of 

'  Newman's  Parochial  Sermons,  Vol.  I.,  p.  124. 
39 


610  THE    THEOLOGY    OF     THE    INTELLECT 

God ;  that  he  assumed  our  nature ;  that  he  died  for  our  sins,  &c. 
These  are  logical  propositions.  They  are  so  set  forth,  that  the 
meaning  of  the  terms  employed,  and  the  sense  of  the  propositions 
themselves,  are  understood,  and  understood  in  the  same  way  hy 
the  renewed  and  the  unrenewed.  That  the  one  class  perceive  in 
the  truths  thus  revealed  an  excellence,  and  esj)erience  from  them 
a  power,  of  which  the  other  class  have  no  experience,  does  not 
alter  the  case.  Revelation,  as  such,  is  addressed  to  the  under- 
standing ;  to  the  understanding  indeed  of  moral  beings,  capable 
of  perceiving  the  import  of  moral  propositions  ;  but  it  is  \eTy 
different  from  spiritual  illumination.  All  this  the  thoery  in 
question  denies.  It  makes  revelation  to  be  the  awakening  and 
elevating  the  religious  feelings,  which  when  thus  roused,  have 
higher  intuitions  of  spiritual  things  than  were  possible  before. 
Doctrines  are  not  matters  of  revelation.  They  have  no  divine 
authority.  They  are  constructed  by  the  understanding.  They 
are  the  logical  statements  of  the  supposed  contents  of  these  im- 
mediate intuitions,  and  are  therefore  fallible,  transient,  variable; 
assuming  one  form  under  one  set  of  influences,  and  a  different 
under  another. 

Thirdly,  this  theory  necessarily  destroys  the  authority  of  the 
Scriptures.  This  follows  from  what  has  already  been  said.  If 
it  subverts  the  true  idea  of  revelation,  it  subverts  all  that  rests 
on  that  idea.  But,  besides  this,  it  teaches  that  the  influence 
under  which  the  sacred  writers  thought  and  wrote  was  not  pecu- 
liar to  them.  It  is  common  to  all  believers.  Inspiration  is  an 
exalted  state  of  the  religious  feelings,  quickening,  and  rendering 
clearer  the  religious  perceptions.  The  light  within  is  therefore 
co-ordinate  with  the  Ught  in  the  Scriptures.  This  theory  is  a 
philosophical  form  of  Quakerism,  and  stands  in  much  the  same 
relation  to  the  normal  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  The  practi- 
cal operation  of  this  doctrine  confirms  the  view  here  given  of  its 
nature  and  tendency.  There  is  of  course  a  great  difference 
among  its  advocates,  as  to  the  reverence  which  they  manifest 
for  the  word  of  God,  and  as  to  the  extent  in  which  they  agree 
with  its  teachings  ;  but  in  all  there  is  abundant  evidence  that 
the  Bible  has  lost  its  ancient  authority  as  a  rule  of  faith.  They 
construct  systems  which  do  not  profess  to  be  expositions  of  what 
is  taught  in  the  word  of  God,  but  deductions  from  the  religious 
consciousness  as  it  now  exists.     Few  of  them  hesitate  to  say  that 


AND    THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS.  611 

the  Bible  is  full  of  errors,  not  merely  of  history  and  science,  but 
of  such  as  are  connected  with  "religion  ;  that  it  is  disfigured  by 
misconceptions,  false  reasoning  and  erroneous  exhibitions  of 
doctrine.  How  can  it  be  otherwise  if  its  logical  propositions  are 
but  the  fallible  interpretation  given  to  their  feelings  by  the  sacred 
writers.  Our  readers  cannot  ask  us  to  say  more  in  opposition  to  a 
theory  which  thus  deals  with  the  Scriptures,  which  represents  its 
doctrinal  statements  as  due  to  the  peculiar  training  of  the  sacred 
writers,  and  which  teaches  that  propositions  categorically  opposed 
to  each  other  may  be  alike  true — true  relatively,  since  none  is 
true  absolutely. 

Professor  Park  may  ask,  What  has  all  this  to  do  with  his  con- 
vention sermon  ?  That  discourse  does  not  teach  that  all  religion 
consists  in  feeling,  nor  does  it  advocate  the  view  of  revelation 
and  inspiration  deduced  from  that  principle.  Very  true.  But 
it  does  teach  one  of  the  main  principles  of  the  theory  in  question. 
It  does  teach  that  right  feeling  may  express  itself  in  inconsistent 
intellectual  forms.  Does  it  not  teach  that  we  may  say  the  sin 
of  Adam  is  imputed  to  his  race  ;  that  our  nature,  since  the  fall 
is  sinful ;  that  Christ's  sufferings  were  of  the  nature  of  punish- 
ment ;  that  he  satisfied  the  law  and  justice  of  Grod,  &c.  ?  And 
yet  are  not  all  these  propositions  pronounced  to  be  false,  in  the 
very  sense  which  those  who  use  them  mean  to  convey  ?  Is  it  not 
the  avowed  design  of  the  sermon  to  show  that  all  "  allowable 
creeds"  may  be  reconciled  ?  Does  not  the  author  attempt  to 
show  that  the  two  great  systems  of  doctrine  which  have  been  in 
conflict  for  ages,  are  but  different  forms  of  expressing  the  same 
right  feelings  ?  If  this  is  so,  we  know  no  method  of  refutation 
more  fair  or  more  conclusive,  than  to  point  out  the  origin,  and 
to  trace  the  consequences  of  a  principle  by  which  these  .results 
.are  brought  about.  To  object  to  an  argument  designed  to  show 
that  a  doctrine  is  false,  by  proving  that  the  principles  which  it 
involves,  and  the  consequences  to  which  it  leads,  are  unsound 
and  dangerous,  is  to  object  to  its  being  refuted  at  all. 


.J'-'- 


X 


XVIII. 

THE   THEOLOGY   OF    THE    INTELLECT 
AND  THAT  OF  THE  FEELINGS/ 

ARTICLE    III. 

It  is  not  our  intention  to  reply  to  the  long  article  of  which 
the  title  is  given  below.  Our  object  in  what  follows  is  to  pre- 
sent in  few  words  our  reasons  for  putting  an  end  to  the  discus- 
sion between  Professor  Park  and  ourselves,  so  far  as  we  are 
concerned. 

His  Convention  Sermon  presented  three  legitimate  topics  for 
discussion,  1.  The  nature  of  the  theory  therein  proposed. 
2.  The  correctness  of  that  theory,  and  3.  Its  value  as  a  general 
solvent  of  all  allowable  creeds.  We  have  endeavored  to  adhere 
strictly  to  these  points.  In  that  sermon  our  author  set  forth  a 
theory  which  he  seemed  to  think  new  and  important.  He  ap- 
plied that  theory  to  neutralize  some  of  the  great  doctrines  of 
the  Bible,  It  was  incumbent  on  those  to  whom  those  doctrines 
are  dear,  and  who  saw  them  evaporating,  in  Professor  Park's 
alembic  into  thin  air,  to  examine  the  nature  of  the  process,  and 
to  ascertain  whether  it  was  a  real  discovery  or  only  another 
Paine-lighfc.  Professor  Park  is  very  importunate  in  urging  that 
we  should  drop  this  subject,  and  take  up  a  very  different  one. 
After  presenting  in  an  interrogative  form  a  variety  of  objections 
to  the  doctrine  of  inliorent  sin,  he  says,  "  We  request  an  answer 
to  these  questions  as  ^.  favor.  We  are  entitled  to  demand  such 
answer  as  a  right."  "     We  cannot  accept  this  challenge.     It  may 

'  Unity  and  Diversities  of  Belief  even  on  Imputed  and  Involuntary  Sin ;  with 
Comments  on  a  Second  Article  in  the  Princeton  Review  relating  to  a  Convention 
Sermon.  By  Edwards  A.  Park,  Abbot  Professor  in  Andover  Theological  Seminary. 
Bibliotheca  Sacra,  July,  1851,  p.  591-641 — Princeton  Review,  October,  1851. 

'  Bib.  Sac.  p.  646. 


614       THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

suit  Professor  Park's  purposes  to  divert  attention  from  the  real 
point  at  issue,  but  we  are  not  disposed  to  aid  him  in  the  attempt. 
In  our  preceding  article  we  distinctly  stated  the  subject  we 
intended  to  discuss.  After  presenting  an  outline  of  the  two 
great  systems  of  doctrine,  which  have  so  long  been  in  conflict, 
we  said,  "  The  question  is  not  which  of  the  antagonistic  systems 
of  theology  above  described  is  true  ;  or  whether  either  is  true. 
Nor  is  the  question  which  of  the  two  Professor  Park  believes. 
His  own  faith  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question.  *  *  *  The 
point  to  be  considered  is  not  so  much  a  doctrinal  one,  as  a  prin- 
ciple of  interpretation,  a  theory  of  exegesis  and  its  application. 
The  question  is,  whether  there  is  any  correct  theory  of  interpre- 
tation by  which  the  two  systems  above  referred  to  can  be  har- 
monized. Are  they  two  theologies  equally  true,  the  one  the 
theology  of  the  intellect,  the  other  the  theology  of  the  feelings  ? 
or,  in  other  words,  are  they  different  forms  of  one  and  the  same 
theology  T' '  On  the  same  page  we  say,  we  proposed,  1.  To 
show  that  the  above  statement  of  the  question  was  correct,  (i.  e. 
that  Professor  Park  had  really  undertaken  the  task  of  reconcil- 
ing the  Augustinian  and  anti-Augustinian  systems  of  theology), 
2.  To  consider  the  success  of  this  attempt,  and  3.  To  examine 
the  nature  of  the  theory  by  which  that  reconciliation  has  been 
attempted.  The  prosecution  of  this  plan  involved  the  careful 
statement  of  the  doctrines  to  be  harmonized  by  the  new  theory, 
but  it  excluded  a  discussion  of  the  truth  of  those  doctrines. 
When,  therefore,  Professor  Park  calls  upon  us,  with  such  author- 
ity, to  answer  his  objections  to  the  doctrine  of  original  or  inher- 
ent sin,  he  is  travelling  out  of  the  record. 

Again,  where  is  the  matter  to  end  ?  The  two  systems  which 
Professor  Park  proposes  to  harmonize  embrace  almost  the  whole 
range  of  theology,  in  its  two  great  departments  of  anthropology 
and  soterology.  Are  we  to  go  over  the  whole  of  this  ground  ? 
Must  we  write  a  system  of  polemic  theology  in  answer  to  a  Con- 
vention Sermon  ?  This  is  a  great  deal  more  than  we  bargained 
for.  When  we  ran  out  of  the  harbor  in  our  yacht  to  see  what 
"long,  low,  black"  schooner  was  making  such  a  smoke  in  the 
offing,  we  had  no  expectation  to  be  called  upon  to  double  Cape 
Horn.  Our  author  indeed  confines  his  present  challenge  to  the 
discussion  of  imputed  and  involuntary  sin  ;  but  these  are  only 

'  PriDoeton  Review,  April,  1851,  p.  320. 


AND    THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS.  615 

two  out  of  a  long  concatenation  of  doctrines  embraced  in  these 
systems  ;  and  if  we  admit  his  right  to  demand  a  discussion  of 
these  at  our  hands,  we  concede  his  right  to  keep  us  busy  to  the 
end  of  our  days.  We  beg  to  be  excused.  Our  relation  to 
Adam,  the  effect  of  his  sin  upon  his  posterity,  the  nature  of  sin, 
ability,  and  inability,  regeneration,  grace,  predestination,  and 
election  ;  the  work  of  Christ,  justification,  faith,  and  persever- 
ance, topics  on  which  thousands  of  volumes  have  been  written, 
are  some  of  the  subjects  on  which  Professor  Park  assumes  the 
right  to  call  us  out  at  pleasure.  This  is  one  of  the  numerous 
mistakes  into  which  our  author  has  been  betrayed  by  a  want  of 
due  discrimination.  The  truth  of  his  theory  and  the  truth  of 
Augustinianism  are  two  very  different  things.  We  are  open  to 
aU  fair  demands  as  to  the  former,  but  we  never  volunteered  to 
defend  "  Gibraltar"  against  his  attacks. 

Again,  where  is  the  necessity  for  any  such  discussion  ?  Why 
should  we  again  go  over  ground  rendered  hard  by  the  footsteps 
of  generations  ?  Why  discuss  anew  questions  which  have  been 
debated  every  ten  years  since  the  days  of  Augustin  ?  Why 
trouble  ourselves  to  pick  up  and  send  back  spent  balls  which 
have  been  discharged  a  thousand  times  before  to  no  purpose  ? 
Every  generation  has  indeed  its  own  life  to  live.  It  must  fight 
out  its  own  battles,  which  are  only  a  repetition  of  the  conflicts 
of  former  ages.  The  same  great  questions  are  constantly  recur- 
ring, and  must  be  settled  anew  by  every  seeking  soul.  But 
these  are  mostly  personal  struggles.  The  doctrines  are  fixed. 
They  have  taken  their  place  in  the  settled  faith  of  the  church  ; 
and  the  real  struggle  is  in  the  breast  of  each  individual,  to  come 
to  a  comprehension,  appreciation,  and  acknowledgment  of  the 
truth.  To  help  such  individuals  in  their  inward  conflicts,  to 
vindicate  the  faith  from  misapprehension,  to  commend  it  tairly 
to  the  acceptance  of  men,  is  now,  in  great  measure,  the  work  of 
the  theological  teacher.  That  there  is  a  God  ;  that  the  Father. 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  three  persons,  the  «ame  in  substance, 
equal  in  power  and  glory  ;  that  God  was  manifested  in  the 
flesh  for  the  redemption  of  man  ;  that  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  is 
very  God  and  very  man  in  two  distinct  natures,  and  one  person 
for  ever  ;  that  he  died  for  our  sins  and  rose  again  for  our  justifi- 
cation ;  that  we  are  saved  by  faith  in  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God, 
who  loved  us  and  gave  himself  for  us  ;  that  the  race  whose 


616      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

nature  he  assumed,  and  whom  he  gave  his  life  to  redeem,  is  a 
fallen  race — born  in  sin — by  nature  the  children  of  wrath,  under 
condemnation  from  their  birth,  infected  with  a  sinful  depravity 
of  nature,  by  which  they  are  disabled  and  indisposed  to  all  spir- 
itual good,  and  therefore  must  be  born  again,  not  of  blood,  nor 
of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God,  ate 
uo  longer  open  questions  among  Christians,  These  doctrines 
are  part  of  the  settled  faith  of  Christendom,  included  in  the 
creeds  of  all  churches,  Greek,  Latin,  Lutheran,  and  Keformed. 
We  are  aware  that  these  doctrines  are  liable  to  assault  from 
various  quarters,  and  that  every  man  should  be  prepared  to  give 
•A  reason  for  the  hope  that  is  in  him.  But  this  is  no  reason 
why  we  should  treat  the  whole  Christian  system  as  something 
unsettled,  to  be  discussed  anew  with  every  individual  who  may 
clioose  to  assail  any  of  its  fundamental  principles.  It  is  time 
tliat  men  should  feel  and  acknowledge  that  assaults  against 
matters  of  common  faith,  are  attacks,  not  against  opinions  of 
men,  but  against  Christianity  ;  so  that  the  position  of  the  assail- 
ant may  be  defined  from  the  beginning.  If  the  point  assailed 
can  be  shown  to  be  part  of  .the  common  faith  of  the  church, 
then  we  think  the  necessity  for  further  debate  is,  in  all  ordinary 
oases,  at  an  end.  We  hold  to  no  infallibility  of  the  church,  but 
we  hold  to  the  certain  truth  of  what  all  Christians  believe.  The 
fact  of  their  agreement  admits  of  no  other  solution,  than  the 
teaching  of  the  Spirit  of  truth,  who  dwells  in  all  believers. 
We  regard  it,  therefore,  as  a  matter  of  great  importance  that 
such  questions  should  not  be  open,  at  least  within  the  church 
[i.  e.  among  Christians)  to  perpetually  renewed  agitation.  The 
church  has  new  conflicts  enough  before  her,  .without  fighting 
over  and  over  her  former  battles. 

Again,  there  is  nothing  new  as  to  substance  or  form,  in  Pro- 
fessor Park's  objections  to  call  for  special  attention.  They  are 
presented  somewhat  more  rhetorically  than  usual,  but  with  less 
than  common  logical  force  and  discrimination.  They  are  the 
old,  ever  recurring,  and  constantly  repeated  difficulties,  which 
arise  partly  from  the  nature  of  the  subject,  and  partly  from  the 
apparent  impossibility  of  disabusing  the  mind  of  misconceptions 
to  which  it  has  become  wedded.  Language  is  at  best  an  im- 
perfect vehicle  of  thought,  and  when  men  have  become  accus- 
tomed to  associate  certain  ideas  with  certain  terms,  they  find  it 


AND    THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS.  617 

very  difficult  to  free  themselves  from  such  trammels.  Thei'e  is  a 
large  class  of  words  to  which  Professor  Park  attaches  a  meaning 
different  from  that  in  which  they  are  used  by  theologians  of  the. 
Eeformed  church,  and  he,  therefore,  unavoidably  misunderstands 
and  misrepresents  their  doctrines.  To  this  class  of  terms  belong 
such  words  as  imputation,  guilt,  punishment,  condemnation, 
satisfaction,  justification,  nature,  natural,  moral,  disposition, 
voluntary,  &c.  In  numerous  cases  he  perverts  these  words  from 
their  established  sense,  and  then  pronounces  judgment  with  the 
greatest  confidence,  on  doctrinal  propositions,  of  whose  meaning 
he  has  no  distinct  apprehension.  If  instead  of  reading  here  and 
there  a  page  in  Turrettin,  through  dark  green  spectacles,  which 
turn  everything  into  spectres,  he  would  read  his  whole  work 
through  with  unclouded  eyes,  he  would  find  himself  in  a  new 
world,  and  would  be  saved  the  trouble  of  asking  a  multitude  of 
irrelevant  questions. 

We  will  give  specimens  of  the  Professor's  objections  to  justify 
our  description  of  their  character.  He  represents  the  doctrine 
of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  for  example,  as  involving  an 
unintelligible  oneness  of  the  race  with  Adam  :  an  assumption 
that  men  sinned  before  they  existed  ;  that  the  moral  character 
of  the  act  imputed  is  transferred  ;  that  men,  being  regarded  as 
morally  guilty  of  Adam's  sin,  are,  contrary  to  all  justice,  punished 
for  it.  The  true  doctrine  on  this  subject  is  nothing  more  or  less 
than  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  the  judicial  ground  of  the  condem- 
nation of  his  race.  There  is  no  mysterious  oneness  of  the  race, 
no  transfer  of  moral  character,  no  assumption  of  the  moral  guilt 
of  men  for  the  sin-  of  Adam,  involved  in  the  doctrine.  Professor 
Park  knows  this,  for  he  himself  makes  the  question  on  this  sub- 
ject to  be,  whether  God  exercises  distributive  justice  or  sover- 
eignty toward  us,  in  causing  us  to  suffer  for  the  sin  of  Adam.' 

'  Bib.  Sacra,  p.  616,  et  seq.  "What  is  more  remarkable,  our  author,  after  stating  at 
great  length,  the  old  theory  ofimiratation,  and  making  it  include  "a  common  exist- 
once"  in  Adam,  ante-natal  sin,  and  transfer  of  moral  ill-desert,  and  laboriously  sus- 
taining his  representations  by  a  long  array  of  misunderstood  quotations,  says,  at 
last,  p.  021,  "The  dispute  turns  chiefly  on  this  word,  punishment,  and  is  merely 
verbal !"  "We  never  saw  a  house  built  with  so  much  trouble  thus  recklessly  pushed 
over  by  its  author.  If  the  old  doctrine  differs  from  the  new  simply  in  the  use  of  a 
word,  then  the  former  does  not  involve  all  the  absurdities  and  atrocities  which 
through  so  many  weary  pages  he  had  been  attributing  to  it.  "We  cannot  see  why 
we  should  be  called  upon  to  answer  objections  which  their  author  thus  summarily 
disposes  of. 


618  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    INTELLECT 

If,  then,  our  author  is  able  for  himself  thus  to  eliminate  the  un- 
essential elements  of  this  doctrine,  why  does  he  overload  it  with 
all  his  queries  and  difficulties  about  oneness,  transfer  of  character, 
&c.,  &c.  ?  If,  as  Professor  Park  says,  the  whole  dispute  is  about 
the  word  punishment,  or,  in  other  words,  whether  the  evils 
brought  upon  our  race  by  the  sin  of  Adam  be  judicial  or  sover- 
eign inflictions,  then  imputation  does  not  involve  any  transfer 
of  the  moral  character  of  the  act  imputed.  This  is  still  further 
plain,  not  only  from  the  explicit  declarations  of  the  advocates  of 
the  doctrine,  but  also  from  the  notorious  fact,  that  no  other  im- 
putation of  the  offence  of  Adam  is  acknowledged  or  contended 
for,  than  is  asserted  when  is  is  said  our  sins  were  imputed  to 
Christ,  and  his  righteousness  is  imputed  to  believers.  Every  one 
knows  it  would  be  a  gross  calumny  against  the  Lutheran  and 
Reformed  churches,  to  say  they  teach  the  transfer  of  moral  tur- 
pitude (or  moral  ill-desert)  to  the  Lord  Jesus,  or  of  the  moral 
excellence  of  his  righteousness  to  his  people.  The  imputation  of 
sin  to  Christ  did  not  render  him  unholy,  nor  does  the  imputation 
of  his  righteousness  render  us  holy.  Why  then  should  it  be  con- 
tended that  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  renders  his  race 
morally  guilty  of  his  transgression  ? 

As  to  the  objection  that  it  is  unjust  to  condemn  men  for  a 
sin  not  personally  their  own,  there  are  three  modes  of  answer. 
First,  it  may  be  shown  that  the  objection  bears  with  aggravated 
force  against  those  who  deny  the  doctrine  of  imputation.  They 
admit  that  evils  only  less  than  infinite  come  upon  the  race  in 
consequence  of  Adam's  sin ;  that  God  as  a  sovereign  determined 
that  if  Adam  sinned  all  his  race  should  sin  ;  he  decreed  to  bring 
men  into  existence  with  such  a  constitution  of  their  nature  and 
under  such  circumstances,  as  to  render  their  becoming  sinners 
absolutely  certain,  and  then  to  condemn  them  to  eternal  misery 
for  the  sin  thus  committed,  in  the  first  dawn  of  reason.  All 
this  is  done  in  sovereignty.  The  other  doctrine  teaches  that  the 
evils  which  afflict  our  race  on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  are  part  of 
the  just  penalty  of  that  transgression.  Professor  Park  himself 
says,  "  Our  calamities  hang  suspended  on  the  sovereign  purpose 
of  heaven  :  we  say,  directly  ;  he  (his  reviewer)  says,  indirectly  : 
we  say,  without  any  intervening  links ;  he  says,  with  the  inter- 
vening links  of  imputation,  guilt,  &c."'     V7hen  we  first  read  this 

'  Bib.  Sacra,  p.  617. 


AND    THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS.  619 

sentence  we  could  hardly  believe  that  Professor  Park  had  been 
given  up  to  speak  the  truth  thus  simply  and  clearly.  It  is  pre- 
cisely as  he  states  it.  A  man  is  put  to  death,  he  says,  by  a 
sovereign  act  ;  we  say,  with  the  trifling  intermediate  Knks  of 
guilt  and  just  condemnation.  He  is  welcome  to  all  the  converts 
he  can  make  by  this  statement  of  his  case. 

A  second  method  of  answering  this  charge  of  injustice  is  to 
show  that  it  bears  against  undeniable  facts  in  the  providence  of 
God.  It  is  vain  to  say  anything  is  wrong  which  God  actually 
does.  It  is  a  plain  fact  that  the  penalty  threatened  against 
Adam  in  case  of  transgression  has  been  inflicted  on  his  posterity. 
Death,  the  pains  of  child-birth,  the  unfriiitfulness  of  the  earth — 
all  the  visible  manifestations  of  God's  displeasure,  fell  upon  the 
race  as  well  as  upon  the  original  transgressors.  These  evils 
were  denounced  as  a  curse,  as  a  penalty,  and  as  such  they  have 
come  on  all  mankind. 

A  third  answer  to  this  objection  is  found  in  the  express  dec- 
larations of  Scripture.  The  Bible  does  not  say  we  are  merely 
pardoned,  by  a  sovereign  act,  on  account  of  Christ's  death ;  but 
that  we  are  justified  by  his  blood.  Neither  does  it  say  we  suffer 
certain  evils  inflicted  in  a  sovereign  manner,  of  which  Adam's 
sin  is  the  occasion ;  but  it  says,  we  are  condemned  for  that  sin. 
If  justification  means  more  than  pardon,  then  condemnation 
means  more  than  the  sovereign  infliction  of  evil.  This  is  Paul's 
method  of  answering  difiiculties.  If  an  objection  can  be  shown 
to  bear  against  the  providence  or  the  word  of  God,  it  is  thereby 
handed  up  to  a  higher  tribunal,  where  the  objector  can  prosecute 
it  or  not  as  he  sees  fit. 

Another  subject  on  which  our  author  has  many  difiiculties  is 
the  doctrine  of  inability — or  the  denial  of  the  doctrine  "  that 
ability  limits  responsibility  ;  that  men  are  responsible  only  so 
far  as  they  have  adequate  power  to  do  what  is  required  of  them; 
that  they  are  responsible  for  nothing  that  is  not  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  will." '  On  this  subject  there  are  three  forms  of 
doctrine  more  or  less  prevalent  in  this  country.  The  first  is 
that  of  plenary  or  adequate  power;  the  second,  the  doctrine  that 
man  is  naturally  able,  but  morally  unable  to  keep  the  command- 
ments of  God  ;  the  third,  the  doctrine  that  since  the  fall  men 
are  both  "  indisposed  and  disabled"  to  all  spiritual  good.  The 
'  Princeton  Review,  April,  1851,  p.  309. 


620      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

symbols  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  churches  which  incul- 
cate this  last  mentioned  view  of  the  subject,  clearly  teach,  first, 
that  since  the  fall  man  retains  all  his  faculties  of  soul  and  body, 
and  is,  therefore,  still  a  free  moral  agent ;  second,  that  he  not 
only  has  the  power  of  choosing  or  refusing  what  is  agreeable  or 
disagreeable,  but  has  the  power  of  performing  things  "  civilly 
good  ;"  the  inability  asserted  is  restricted  to  things  spiritually 
good,  or  things  connected  with  salvation  ;  thirdly,  that  this 
inability  arises  out  of  the  sinful  state  of  the  soul,  and  is  removed 
by  spiritual  regeneration  and  the  co-operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  second  form  of  this  doctrine  mentioned  above,  is  a  kind  of 
neutral  ground,  and  is  a  very  convenient  hiding  and  dodging 
place.  Many  who  profess  that  view  of  the  subject,  mean  by 
natural  ability,  nothing  more  than  what  the  old  theologians 
mean  by  man's  free  agency  ;  and  by  moral  inability  they  mean 
what  those  divines  intend,  when  they  say  men  are  since  the  fall 
disabled  and  indisposed  to  all  spiritual  good.  On  the  other  hand, 
however,  there  are  many  who  understand  by  natural  ability, 
plenary  power ;  and  the  only  inability  which  they  admit,  is  a 
disinclination  which  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  will,  i.  c,  of  the 
sinner  in  the  exercise  of  his  natural  strength,  to  remove. 

With  regard  to  Professor  Park's  objections  to  the  old  doctrine 
on  this  subject,  we  have  but  three  remarks  to  make.  First  :  Most 
of  his  difficulties  arise  from  his  not  understanding  the  question. 
He  overlooks  the  limitations  and  explanations  of  the  doctrine 
given  in  the  Protestant  confessions.  We  no  more  believe  than 
Professor  Park  does,  that  men  can  be  under  obligation  to  create 
a  world  by  tbeir  own  power.  The  old  doctrine  does  not  repre- 
sent the  inability  of  the  sinner  as  being  the  same  in  kind, 
though  as  invincible  in  degree  as  that  of  the  blind  to  see,  or  of 
the  deaf  to  hear.  The  inability  of  the  blind  to  see  does  not 
arise  out  of  their  moral  state,  has  not  reference  to  moral  acts, 
and  is  not  removed  by  a  moral  change.  It  is,  therefore,  of  an 
entirely  different  nature  from  the  inability  under  which  the  sin- 
ner is  represented  to  labor.  The  objection,  therefore,  which 
takes  for  granted  their  identity,  is  simply  an  argumentum  ad 
ignorantiam.  Secondly  :  Whether  men  are,  or  are  not  able,  of 
themselves  to  do  all  that  God  requires,  is  a  question  of  fact,  and 
is  to  be  determined  accordingly.  Where  is  the  man  who  has 
ever  regenerated  himself  ?     Where  is  the  man  who  has  loved 


AND    THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS.  621 

God  perfectly  even  for  one  hour,  much  less  for  a  lifetime  ? 
Where  is  the  sinner  who  by  any  exercise  of  his  natural  strength, 
though  in  imminent  danger  of  perdition,  can  turn  himself  unto 
God  ?  Let  Professor  Park,  with  all  his  boasted  power,  go  on  his 
knees  and  utter  ten  sentences  in  a  manner  to  satisfy  his  own 
conscience.  He  knows  he  could  not  do  it,  if  the  salvation  of 
the  world  depended  on  it.  The  plain,  simple  fact  of  conscious- 
ness and  observation,  is  that  men  cannot  do  what  they  know 
they  are  bound  to  do  ;  and  every  denial  of  this  fact,  is  either 
palpably  false,  or  true  only  in  an  esoteric  and  deluding  sense. 
As  every  man  knows  that  his  affections  are  not  under  the  con- 
trol of  his  will,  the  only  way  to  sustain  the  doctrine,  that  ability 
is  the  measure  of  obligation,  is  to  take  the  ground  that  we  are 
not  responsible  for  our  affections  ;  that  the  command  to  love  is 
absurd  ;  and  then  the  very  foundation  of  religion  and  morals  is 
overthrown.  Thirdly :  As  the  Scriptures  nowhere  tell  men 
they  can  regenerate  themselves,  but  expressly  declare  that  the 
natural  man  cannot  discern  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  so 
that  blessed  Agent,  in  leading  men  to  a  knowledge  of  themselves, 
uniformly  convinces  them  of  their  entire  helplessness,  i.  e.  that 
they  cannot  of  themselves  repent,  believe,  or  even  think  any 
good  thought.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  surprise,  therefore,  that 
the  doctrine  of  adequate  power,  or  that  men  "can  by  their 
natural  strength  turn  themselves  unto  God,"  is  repudiated  as 
anti-Christian  no  less  by  Komanists  than  by  Protestants.  It  is 
just  as  abhorrent  to  the  theology  of  New  England,  as  it  is  to 
that  of  the  Keformed  church. 

It  is,  however,  on  the  subject  of  involuntary  sin  that  Professor 
Park  is  most  zealous,  and  on  which  he  seems  most  confident  of 
carrying  the  public  sympathy  with  him.  The  term  involuntary 
is  not  very  happily  chosen,  as  it  is  used  in  very  different  senses. 
Any  thing  may  be  said  to  be  voluntary  which  inheres  in  the 
will,  or  which  flows  from  an  act  of  the  will,  or  which  consists 
in  such  an  act.  Then  again,  the  word  ivill  may  be  taken  to 
include  all  the  "  active  powers  of  the  mind,"  so  that  all  liking 
and  disliking  are  acts  of  the  will ;  or  it  may  be  taken  in  the 
stricter  sense  for  the  imperative  faculty  of  the  mind,  or  power  of 
self-determination.  In  this  sense,  only  acts  of  choice,  volitions 
generic  or  imperative,  are  acts  of  will.  To  say  that  all  sin  is 
voluntary  in  the  first  of  these  senses,  is  a  very  different  thing 


622      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

from  saying  it  is  voluntary  in  the  sense  last  mentioned.  Yet  it 
is  easy  and  very  tempting  to  quote,  as  Professor  Park  does, 
Augustin's  admission  that  all  sin  is  voluntary  in  one  sense,  as  an 
authority  for  teaching  it  is  voluntary  in  a  sense  which  would 
overthrow  the  whole  of  that  father's  system. 

On  this  subject  of  original  sin,  we  have  in  this  country  three 
principal  forms  of  doctrine.  The  first  is  founded  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  all  sin  consists  in  the  voluntary  transgression  of  known 
laws  ;  whence  it  follows  that  whatever  may  be  the  condition  of 
human  nature  since  the  fall,  there  is  nothing  of  the  nature  of 
sin  in  man  until  in  his  own  person  he  voluntarily  transgresses 
the  law  of  God.  The  second  is  "  the  exercise  scheme,"  which 
assuming  that  the  soul  itself  is  a  series  of  exercises,  teaches  that 
moral  agency  begins  at  the  commencement  of  the  existence  of 
the  soul,  and  that  since  the  fall  all  moral  exercises,  though 
"  created"  by  God,  are  sinful,  until  at  regeneration  a  holy  series 
is  commenced.  The  third  is  the  common  doctrine  that  men 
derive  from  Adam  a  sinful  nature,  i.  e.  that  they  are  born  desti- 
tute of  original  righteousness,  and  with  unholy  dispositions  or 
principles,  which  corruption  of  nature  is  commonly  called  original 
sin.  This,  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt,  is  the  doctrine  em- 
bodied in  the  symbols,  inculcated  in  the  teaching,  and  implied 
in  the  rites  of  every  Christian  church.  Our  author  indeed  says 
that  some  theologians  have  taught  this  doctrine.*  Some  indeed  ! 
He  might  as  well  admit  that  some  men  have  eyes.  True  or 
false,  the  doctrine  of  inherent,  hereditary,  sinful  corruption  of 
human  nature  since  the  fall,  is  part  of  the  faith  of  the  whole 
church.  In  assailing  that  doctrine,  Professor  Park  arrays  him- 
self, not  against  some  theologians,  but  against  the  Christian 
world,  and  he  should  have  the  courage  to  acknowledge  his  posi- 
tion.    He  denies  a  doctrine,  the  rejection  of  which  (connected 

'  Bib.  Sac.  p.  628.  "  "What  is  the  theory  of  passive,  inherent  sin  ?  Our  reviewer 
frankly  defines  his  doctrine  when  he  says  that  we  have  '  an  innate,  hereditary,  sin- 
ful corruption  of  nature;'  that  we  have  derived  from  Adam  'a  nature  not  merely 
diseased,  weakened,  or  predisposed  to  evil,  but  which  is  'itself  as  well  as  'all  the 
motions  thereof  truly  and  properly  sin.'  Having  already  admitted  that  many  theo- 
logians have  beHeved  in  our  moral  guilt  for  the  crime  of  Adam,  we  also  admit  that 
some  have  beUeved  in  our  moral  guilt  for  the  very  make  of  our  souls.  The  two 
themes  have  by  some  been  indissolubly  blended,  and  it  has  been,  therefore,  main- 
tained that  our  inherent  as  well  as  our  imputed  sin  is  ill  deserving,  and  is  justly 
punishable  with  the  second  death." 


AND    THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS.  623 

with  the  assertion  of  plenary  powers),  Edwards  says,  does  away 
with  the  necessity  of  redemption.  He  puts  himself  in  special 
opposition  to  the  faith  of  the  New  England  churches  ;  for  the 
New  England  divines,  the  less  they  made  of  imputation,  the 
more  stress  did  they  lay  on  inherent  sin. 

Most  of  Professor  Park's  objections  to  this  doctrine  belong 
to  one  or  the  other  of  two  classes  ;  they  either  arise  from  mis- 
apprehension, or  they  involve  a  petitio  j^'^'i^ncipii.  The  source 
of  a  large  part  of  them  is  indicated  in  the  following  sentence : 
"  A  tliorough  Calvinist  can  no  more  believe  in  the  passive  sin 
of  the  heart,  than  he  can  believe  in  the  sin  of  the  muscles  and 
veins."  *  It  is  assumed  that  nature  means  the  essence  of  the 
soul  with  its  constitutional  faculties  and  sensibilities,  A  sinful 
nature,  therefore,  must  mean  a  sinful  substance,  something 
made.  Hence  the  objections  about  physical  depravity,  God's 
being  the  author  of  sin,  the  absurdity  of  men  being  responsible 
for  the  "  make"  of  their  souls,  &c.,  &c.  All  these  objections  are 
swept  away  by  the  simple  remark,  that  nature  in  such  connexion 
means  natural  disposition,  and  is  expressly  declared  not  to  mean 
essence  or  substance.  Cannot  a  man  have  a  new  nature  without 
having  a  new  soul  ?  Cannot  we  believe  in  a  holy  nature  with- 
out believing  in  holy  muscles  ?  In  every  rudimcntal  treatise  on 
original  sin  our  author  will  find  distinctions  and  definitions 
which  ought  to  have  precluded  the  possibility  of  his  advancing 
such  objections  as  these. 

Another  class  of  his  difficulties  arises  from  his  taking  for 
granted  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  moral  dispositions,  as  dis- 
tinct from  active  preferences.  To  him  it  appears  an  axiom  that 
all  sin  consists  in  sinning.  "  What,"  he  asks,  "  is  the  passive 
voice  of  the  verb  sin  ?  What  is  the  inactive  form  of  the  word 
evil-doers  ?  Why  is  language  made  without  any  such  phrases 
as  to  endure  or  suffer  criminality  without  any  criminal  volition  ?'" 
These  are  some  of  the  questions  to  which  he  says  he  has  a  right 
to  demand  an  answer.  We  would  reply  with  all  seriousness  and 
respect,  that  years  ago,  when  we  were  harassed  by  the  same  diffi- 
culties, we  derived  more  satisfaction  from  Edwards  on  the  Kelig- 
ious  Affections,  and  from  his  work  on  Original  Sin,  than  from 
any  other  source.  We  there  found  a  philosophical  exhibition  of 
the  nature  of  dispositions,  principles,  or  habits,  as  distinguished 

*  Bib.  Sac.  p.  642.      .  »  Bib.  Sac.  p.  645. 


624  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    INTELLECT 

from  acts  ;  and  a  clear  demonstration  that  such  dispositions, 
whether  innate,  infused,  or  acquired,  may  have  a  moral  charac- 
ter. The  venerable  father  of  New  England  theology  taught  us 
that  it  was  not  "necessary  that  there  should  first  be  thought, 
reflection,  and  choice,  before  there  can  be  any  virtuous  disposi- 
tion ;"'  and  therefore  that  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  nature 
of  virtue  that  Adam  should  be  created  ''with  holy  principles  and 
dispositions."  He  showed  us  that  as  it  was  possible  for  Adam 
to  be  holy,  before  any  act  of  preference,  so  it  is  possible  for  man 
to  be  unholy  before  any  such  act.  He  made  it  plain  to  us  that 
the  Scriptures  everywhere  inculcate  the  doctrine  that  there  may 
be,  and  are,  moral  principles  distinct  from  moral  acts  and  ante- 
cedent to  them,  in  the  distinction  which  they  make  between  the 
tree  and  its  fruits,  between  the  heart  and  the  thoughts,  feelings, 
and  preferences  which  proceed  out  of  it ;  in  their  description  of 
the  natural  state  of  men  as  born  in  sin,  and  by  nature  the  chil- 
dren of  wrath  ;  in  their  representing  even  infants  as  needing 
redemption  and  regeneration  ;  and  in  their  account  of  a  new 
birth,  as  the  infusion  of  a  new  life,  a  holy  principle,  inherent 
and  permanent,  as  the  source  of  all  holy  preferences,  feelings, 
words  and  works.  He  pointed  out  to  us  a  fact  which  seems  to 
have  escaped  Professor  Park's  notice,  viz.,  that  all  human  lan- 
guages (so  far  as  known)  bear  the  impress  of  this  distinction 
betw^een  moral  principles  and  moral  acts.  A  good  or  bad  man 
means  something  more  than  a  man  whose  preferences  are  good 
or  bad,  whose  acts  are  right  or  wrong.  It  is  implied  in  such  ex- 
pressions that  there  are  certain  abiding  moral  states  which  con- 
stitute the  man's  character,  and  afford  ground  of  assurance  what 
his  acts  will  be.  He  further  showed  us  how  deeply  this  doctrine 
entered  into  the  religious  experience  of  God's  people,  and  how 
intimately  it  is  connected  with  the  whole  scheme  of  redemption. 
It  is  not  for  us  to  retail  his  arguments,  but  we  apprize  Professor 
Park  that  if  he  hopes  to  succeed  in  his  present  course,  or  to  carry 
with  him  the  sympathy  and  confidence  of  New  England,  the  first 
thing  he  has  to  do  is  to  answer  Edwards  on  the  Will,  Edwards 
on  the  Affections,  and  Edwards  on  Original  Sin.  When  he  has 
done  this,  it  will  be  time  enough  to  come  all  the  w^ay  down  to 
us.  In  the  meanwhile,  we  think  it  best  to  step  aside,  and  let 
him  face  his  real  antagonist.' 

'  Edwards  on  Original  Sin,  p.  140. 

*  Should  Professor  Park  accomplish  the  task  indicated  iu  tho  text,  he  will  find  hia 


AND    THAT    OF    THE    FEELINGS.  625 

Our  first  general  reason,  then,  for  discontinuing  this  discussion 
is,  that  our  author,  instead  of  adhering  to  the  true  question  in 
debate,  wishes  to  introduce  a  doctrinal  controversy  for  which  we 
feel  no  vocation  and  see  no  occasion.  Our  second  reason  is  to  be 
found  in  his  manner  of  conducting  the  discussion.  He  represents 
our  articles  as  little  else  than  a  series  of  misstatements,  and  our 
method  of  argument  as  little  better  than  "  nicknaming."  See 
pp.  628  and  605,  et  passim.  He  will  not,  therefore,  object  to 
our  respectfully  pointing  out  some  particulars  in  which  it  appears 
to  us  he  bas  come  short. 

In  the  first  place,  we  think  his  articles  are,  to  a  great  degree, 
characterized  by  evasions,  and  playing  with  words.  For  exam- 
ple, one  point  of  distinction  between  the  two  systems  of  theology, 
is  that  the  one  teaches  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  penal, 
the  other  that  they  were  simply  didactic  ;  that  is,  designed  to 
exhibit  truth  and  make  a  moral  impression.  This  point  is  evaded 
by  the  remark  that  the  author  only  denied  that  Christ  sufiered 
the  entire  penalty  of  the  law,  which  his  reviewer  must  admit,  as 
he  does  not  hold  that  Christ  suffered  remorse.  Another  point 
of  difference  is,  as  to  whether  the  law  of  God  is  set  aside  in  the 
salvation  of  sinners,  or  whether  its  demands  are  satisfied  by  the 
righteousness  of  Christ.  This  corner  is  turned  by  saying  that 
what  he  rejects  is  complete  satisfaction  which  his  reviewer  can- 
not maintain,  as  he  admits  the  law  to  be  still  binding  as  a  rule 
of  duty.  Again,  the  theology  of  the  intellect,  we  are  told,  would 
not  suggest  the  unqualified  remark  that  Christ  has  folly  paid  the 
debt  of  sinners.  Here  the  pirouette  is  performed  on  the  word 
unqualified,  and  the  real  point  is  left  untouched.  To  such  an 
extent  is  this  word-play  carried,  that  language  seems  in  his 
hands  to  lose  its  meaning.  He  can  make  anything  out  of  any- 
thing. In  his  former  article,  setting  up  himself  and  his  reviewer 
as  representatives  of  opposite  systems,  he  showed  that  there  was 
nothing  the  latter  could  say  in  the  matter  of  doctrine  which  he 
could  not  say  too  ;  and  in  the  present  article,  he  "  avows  before 

work  scarcely  begun.  There  is  Julius  3IiiUer''s  "  Lelire  von  der  Sunde,"  the  most  elab- 
orate and  philosophical  work  on  the  subject  of  sin  which  has  appeared  since  the  Ref- 
ormation. That  work  must  be  answered,  and  then  he  will  have  before  him  all  the 
great  army  of  Romanist  and  Protestant  divines ;  and  when  all  these  are  disposed  of^ 
he  will  be  prepared  for  Augustin,  and  after  him  for  Paul.  "We  humbly  hope  to  be 
in  heaven  long  before  our  turn  comes. 

40 


626      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

the  wide  world"  his  hearty  belief  that  we  are  regarded  and  treated 
as  sinners  on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  that  we  are  punished  for  it, 
by  which,  he  says,  he  means  that  we  "  are  not  punished  in  the 
most  proper  sense."  (See  p.  623.)  Thus  the  words  satisfaction, 
impute,  ability,  inability,  &c.,  &c.,  are  kept  going  up  and  down 
like  a  juggler's  balls,  until  no  man  can  tell  what  they  mean,  or 
whether  they  have  any  meaning  at  all.  We  feel  ourselves  to  be 
no  match  for  our  author  in  such  a  game  as  this,  and  therefore 
give  the  matter  up.  He  may  keep  the  balls  going,  and  we  will 
take  our  place  among  the  admiring  spectators. 

In  the  second  place,  we  object  to  the  personal  character  which 
he  has  given  the  discussion.  The  only  interest  which  our  readers 
can  be  presumed  to  take  in  this  matter,  relates  to  the  truths  con- 
cerned. But  our  author  seems  far  more  anxious  to  prove  that 
his  reviewer  contradicts  himself  and  agrees  with  him,  than  to 
establish  the  truth  of  his  theory.  This  ad  hominem  method  of 
argument  is  greatly  commended  by  our  author's  friends,  and  con- 
sidered very  eifective.  Were  he  ever  so  successful  in  his  attempts 
to  convict  his  reviewer  of  self-contradiction,  we  cannot  see  that 
he  would  be  much  the  better  for  it.  His  theory  would  remain 
unproved  and  its  evil  tendencies  uncounteracted.  In  our  partial 
judgment,  how^ever,  our  author  nowhere  appears  to  less  advantage 
than  in  these  personal  attacks.  To  make  sure  of  his  object  he 
goes  back  twenty  years,  and  ascribes  to  us  articles  in  this  Review 
some  of  which  we  probably  never  even  read.  Taking  such  a 
sweep  as  this  it  is  hard  that  he  should  catch  nothing.  We  will 
select  what  we  consider  the  most  plausible  examples  of  self-con- 
tradictions, examples  over  which  our  author  has  specially  tri- 
umphed, and  show  in  few  words  the  source  of  his  mistake. 

In  our  former  article  we  denied  that  ability  or  adequate  power 
is  the  measure  of  obligation.  As  a  direct  contradiction  to  this, 
he  quotes  from  the  Biblical  Repertory  for  1831,  the  passage, 
"  Man  cannot  be  under  obligation  to  do  what  requires  powers 
which  do  not  belong  to  his  nature  and  constitution."  This,  he 
says,  ends  the  strife.  These  propositions  are  not  only  perfectly 
consistent,  but  it  is  the  express  object  of  the  writer  of  the  article 
for  1831  to  teach  the  very  doctrine  that  abihty  is  not  the  measure 
of  obhgation,  and  this  Professor  Park  could  not  possibly  ftiil  to 
see  and  know  if  he  read  the  article  he  quotes.  The  above  propo- 
sitions are  consistent,  for  the  one  does  not  affirm  what  the  other 


AND    THAT    OF     THE    FEELINGS.  627 

denies.  The  one  affirms  that  nothing  can  be  obligatory  which 
transcends  the  powers  of  our  nature  and  constitution.  The  ex- 
amples given  by  the  writer  are,  that  a  rational  act  cannot  be 
required  of  an  irrational  animal,  nor  a  man  be  required  to  trans- 
port himself  to  heaven.  The  other  simply  denies  that  adequate 
power,  or  as  it  is  explained,  the  power  of  the  will,  is  the  measure 
of  obligation  ;  for  example,  it  is  not  necessary  that  a  man  should 
be  able  to  change  his  affections  at  will  in  order  to  his  being 
responsible  for  them.  The  object  of  the  writer  is  thus  distinctly 
stated  :  "  The  maxim,"  he  says,  that  obligation  to  obey  a  com- 
mand supposes  the  existence  of  an  ability  to  do  the  act  required, 
relates  entirely  to  actions  consequent  on  volitions."  "  Man,"  he 
says  further,  "  cannot  alter  the  perceptions  of  sense  ;  he  cannot 
excite  affections  to  any  objects  at  will.  *  *  *  We  utterly 
deny,"  he  adds,  "  that  in  order  to  a  man's  being  accountable  and 
culpable  for  enmity  to  God,  he  should  have  the  power  of  instantly 
changing  his  enmity  to  love."'  Where  is  now  the  contradiction 
between  the  Kepertory  of  1831  and  the  Repertory  of  1851  ?  And 
where  is  now  our  author's  self-respect  ? 

On  page  630  he  goes  still  further  back,  and  quotes  from  the 
Repertory  of  1830,  the  proposition  :  "  the  loss  of  original  righte- 
ousness and  corruption  of  nature  are  penal  evils ;"  whereas  in 
another  place,  the  Repertory  says,  "  we  do  not  teach,  however, 
that  sin  is  the  punishment  of  sin."  Professor  Park  asks,  "  What 
are  we  to  believe  .^  Noio,  original  sin  is  a  penal  evil  ;  but  then 
we  do  not  teach  that  sin  is  penal  !"  Taken  in  their  connexion 
these  propositions  are  perfectly  consistent.  It  is  a  common  ob- 
jection to  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  that  it  represents  sin  to  be 
the  punishment  of  sin.  To  this  it  is  answered,  that  if  this 
means  either  that  God  causes  men  to  commit  one  sin  as  a  pun- 
ishment for  having  committed  another,  or  that  he  infuses  evil 
principles  into  men's  hearts  as  a  punishment  of  their  own,  or  of 
Adam's  sin,  then  we  deny  that  sin  is  the  punishment  of  sin.  As 
these  are  the  senses  in  which  objectors  are  wont  to  use  the  ex- 
pression, it  is  perfectly  proper  and  perfectly  intelligible  to  deny 
that  we  teach  what  they  charge  upon  us,  when  they  say  sin  is 
the  punishment  of  sin.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  perfectly  intel- 
ligible and  perfectly  correct  to  express  the  idea  that  original  sin 
is  the  certain  consequence  of  God's  judicial   abandonment  ot 

'  Biblical  Repertory,  July  1  SI ! . 


628  THE    THEOLOGY     OF     THE    INTELLECT 

our  race,  by  saying  it  is  a  penal  evil.  Paul  teaches,  Eom.  i.  24, 
that  Grocl  judicially  abandons  men  to  uncleanness,  and  that 
immorality  is  a  punishment  of  impiety.  In  this  sense  sin  is 
the  punishment  of  sin.  But  in  the  sense  that  God  causes  men 
to  sin,  or  infuses  sin  into  them,  as  objectors  saj,  sin  is  not  the 
punishment  of  sin.  Cannot  our  author  understand  this  ?  The 
Bible  says  God  does  not  temj^t  men ;  in  other  places  it  says,  He 
does  tempt  them.  The  apostle  says,  the  heathen  know  God, 
and  in  another  place  that  they  do  not  know  him.  AVhat 
would  be  thought  of  a  sceptic  who  should  try  to  overthrow 
the  authority  of  Scripture  by  parading  such  verbal  contradic- 
tions as  contradictions  in  doctrine  ? 

Again,  the  denial  that  nature,  in  the  sense  of  essence,  is  or 
can  be  sinful,  is  represented  as  contradicting  the  assertion,  that 
nature  in  the  sense  of  moral  disposition,  can  have  a  moral  char- 
acter ;  and  the  assertion  that  the  Augustinian  system  character- 
istically exalts  the  sovereignty  of  God,  is  inconsistent  with  say- 
ing that  the  opposite  system  represents  the  law  of  God,  in  the 
pardon  of  sinners,  as  being  set  aside  by  a  sovereign  act.  In  view 
of  such  contradictions.  Professor  Park  asks,  "What  will  this 
gentleman  say  next  ?"  Why,  he  says  he  would  just  as  soon- 
spend  his  time  in  picking  up  pins  as  in  answering  such  objections 
as  these,  of  which  we  should  say,  in  the  language  of  feeling, 
there  must  be  some  hundreds  in  our  author's  two  articles. 

There  is  another  class  of  these  arguments  ad  hominem.  There 
are  certain  familiar  facts  and  j^i'inciples  which  lend  an  air  of 
plausibility  to  our  author's  theory,  and  which  we  were  careful  to 
distinguish  from  it.  We  admitted  that  figurative  language  and 
the  language  of  emotion  were  not  to  be  pressed  unduly ;  that 
true  believers  agree  much  more  nearly  in  their  inward  faith  than 
in  their  written  creeds ;  that  the  mind  often  passes  from  one 
state  to  another,  at  one  time  receiving  as  true  what  at  another  it 
regards  as  false.  When  in  his  search  for  contradictions  the 
author  finds  in  our  pages  the  acknowledgment  of  such  truths  as 
these,  he  brings  them  forward  with  exultation  as  the  very  doc- 
trine of  his  sermon.  He  cjuotes,  for  example,  the  following 
passage  from  the  Biblical  Eepertory,  Vol.  xx.  p.  140  :  "  There 
is  a  region  a  little  lower  than  the  head,  and  a  little  deeper  than 
the  reach  of  speculation,  in  which  those  who  think  they  difier,  or 
difier  in  thinking,  may  yet  rejoice  in  Christian  fellowship."     On 


AND    THAT    OF     THE    FEELINGS.  629 

page  598  of  his  present  article  he  says,  "Lest  our  reviewer  sus- 
pect this  remark  of  Germanism,  let  him  have  the  goodness  to 
re-peruse  his  own  saying,  '  this  is  a  doctrine  which  can  only  be 
held  as  a  theory.  It  is  in  conflict  with  the  most  intimate  moral 
convictions  of  men  ;'  and  further,  '  it  is  the  product  of  the  mere 
imderstanding,  and  does  violence  to  the  instinctive  moral  judg- 
ment of  men  ;'  and  further  still,  '  even  among  those  who  make 
theology  their  study,  there  is  often  one  form  of  doctrine  for  spec- 
ulation, another,  simpler  and  truer  for  the  closet[!]  Metaphys- 
ical distinctions  are  forgotten  in  prayer,  or  under  the  pressure  of 
real  conviction  of  sin,  and  need  of  pardon,  and  of  divine  assist- 
ance. Hence  it  is  that  the  devotional  writings  of  Christians 
agree  far  more  than  their  creeds.'  "  We  can  almost  pardon  our 
author  considering  the  straits  to  which  he  is  reduced,  for  quoting 
these  passages  as  agreeing  with  the  doctrine  of  his  sermon. 
The  difference  between  them  is,  however,  we  are  sorry  to  say, 
essential. 

It  is  a  familiar  fact  of  consciousness  and  observation  that  faith 
is  sometimes  determined  by  the  understanding,  and  sometimes 
by  the  inward  experience  and  instinctive  laws  of  our  nature.  It 
is  also  a  familiar  fact  that  the  convictions  produced  by  the  con- 
siderations presented  by  the  understanding,  give  way  when  those 
considerations  pass  from  the  view  of  the  mind,  and  it  is  brought 
under  the  influence  of  the  feelings  and  the  common  laws  of  belief. 
Thus,  a  man  may  be  a  sincere  idealist  so  long  as  the  metaphys- 
ical arguments  in  favor  of  the  system  are  before  the  mind  ;  but 
as  soon  as  the  attention  is  withdrawn  from  those  arguments,  and 
the  mind  is  brought  under  ordinary  influences,  he  believes  in  the 
external  world  as  truly  as  other  men.  Thus  too,  a  man  puzzled 
with  the  difliculties  which  beset  certain  doctrines,  or  controlled 
by  his  philosophical  theories,  may  be  a  sinccjre  Arminian  ;  or  he 
may  really  believe  that  responsibility  is  limited  by  ability,  that 
he  has  no  sin  in  him  but  his  acts,  and  that  he  can  change  his 
heart  by  a  volition.  But  when  these  theories  are  absent,  and 
the  mind  is  brought  into  contact  with  the  simple  word  of  God, 
or  governed  in  its  conviction  by  the  inward  teachings  of  the 
Spirit,  he  can  adopt  all  the  language  of  David  or  Augustin.  Still 
further,  it  is  not  uncommon  to  meet  with  experiences  similar  t( 
that  of  Schleiermacher.  He  was  educated  as  a  Moravian,  but 
became  addicted  to  a  Pantheistic  form  of  philosophy,  and  wrote 


630      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

a  system  of  divinity,  which  such  men  as  Hengstenberg  regard  as 
subverting  some  of  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  Yet, 
he  often  relapsed  into  his  former  faith,  and  thought,  felt,  acted, 
and  it  is  hoped,  died  as  a  Moi-avian.  All  this  is  true,  and  this, 
and  nothing  more  than  this,  is  contained  in  the  extracts  quoted 
by  Professor  Park  from  our  pages.  Has  any  one  before  our 
author,  ever  inferred  from  these  facts,  that  ideaUsm  and  materi- 
alism are  different  modes  of  one  and  the  same  philosophy  ;  or 
that  Arminianism  and  Calvinism,  Moravianism  and  Pantheism, 
are  but  different  forms  of  one  and  the  same  theology  ?  Let  it 
be  remembered  that  Professor  Park  proposes  to  reconcile  all 
allowable  creeds  ;  that  he  proposes  to  do  this  by  his  theory  of 
two  theologies,  the  one  of  the  intellect,  and  the  other  of  the 
feelings,  distinguished  not  as  true  and  false,  but  as  "  one  system 
of  truths  exhibited  in  two  modes,"'  that  he  applies  his  method 
exprofesso  to  harmonizing  the  Augustinian  and  anti-Augustinian 
systems,  and  in  the  article  under  consideration,  applies  his  prin- 
ciples to  the  case  of  imputed  and  invohmtary  sin,  for  this  reason 
among  others,  "  that  it  is  more  difficult  to  reconcile  the  New 
England,  and  the  old  Calvinism,  on  these  subjects,  than  on  any 
other."^  Is  there  not  a  difference  between  Professor  Park  and 
ourselves  ?  Is  there  not  a  difference  between  saying  that  pious 
men,  when  not  speculating,  think  and  feel  very  much  alike,  and 
saying  that  conflicting  creeds  are  one  system  of  truths  presented 
in  different  modes  ?  Whether  Professor  Park  has  come  to  this 
conclusion,  by  the  same  steps  as  the  German  theologians,  or  not, 
the  fiict  is  clear  that  the  conclusion  is  the  same.  Their  theory 
is,  Christianity  is  a  life  and  not  a  doctrine.  Their  conclusion  is 
that  this  life  manifests  itself  in  different  theologies,  wliich  differ 
not  as  true  and  false,  but  as  the  same  system  of  truths  in  dif- 
ferent modes.  He  says  it  is  "an  unworthy  attempt,"  on  our 
part,  to  link  his  sermon  with  the  German  theory.  We  express- 
ly and  repeatedly  stated  we  intended  no  such  thing,"  though 
we  are  free  to  confess,  it  appears  to  us  more  respectable  to  take 
the  theory  with  the  conclusion,  than  to  take  the  conclusion  with- 
out the  theory.  We  would  far  rather  adopt  the  Schleiermacher 
doctrine  on  this  subject  out  and  out,  than  the  principle  which 
to   so   great   an   extent  pervades    Professor  Park's  articles,  of 

'  Bib,  Sac.  p.  596.  ^  Bib.  Sac.  p.  607. 

3  Princeton  Review,  April,  1851,  pp.  333,  337. 


AND     THAT     0¥     THE     FEELINGS.  631 

teaching  error  in  the  established  formulas  of  truth.'  We 
begin  to  suspect  that  when  our  author  wrote  his  Convention 
Sermon  he  had  no  developed  theory  whatever.  There  probably 
floated  in  his  mind  the  simple  principles,  that  men  often  say 
things  in  an  excited  state  of  the  feelings,  which  mean  more  than 
their  sober  judgment  can  approve ;  tbat  good  people  agree  much 
nearer  in  experience  than  in  their  creeds  ;  and  that  a  man  often 
changes  his  faith  with  his  varying  states  of  mind  :  and  he 
thought  he  could,  out  of  those  principles,  construct  a  scheme  of 
union  of  allowable  creeds,  and  do  away  with  the  inconvenient 
distinction  of  sound  and  unsound  theology.  But  in  the  excite- 
ment of  the  work,  his  Pegasus  ran  away  with  him,  and  carried 
him  over  into  the  Grerman  camp,  and  when  a  friendly  hand 
rouses  him  up  and  tells  him  where  he  has  got  to,  he  insists  he  is 
still  safe  at  home. 

There  is  another  feature  of  Professor  Park's  mode  of  conduct- 
ing this  discussion,  which  is  very  little  to  our  taste.  He  con- 
stantly endeavors  to  represent  us  as  assailing  New  England 
theology.  This  is  a  ruse  de  guerre  every  way  unworthy  of  a 
candid  disputant.  We  stated  as  the  three  radical  principles  of 
the  anti-Augustinian  system — "  First,  that  all  '  sin  consists  in 
sinning  ;'  that  there  can  be  no  moral  character  but  in  moral 
acts  ;  secondly  that  the  power  to  the  contrary  is  essential  to  free 
agency ;  that  a  free  agent  may  always  act  contrary  to  any  influ- 
ence, not  destructive  of  his  freedom,  which  can  be  brought  to 
bear  upon  him  ;  thirdly,  that  ability  limits  responsibility  :  that 
men  are  responsible  only  so  far  as  they  have  adequate  power  to 
do  what  is  required  of  them,  or  that  they  are  responsible  for 
nothing  not  under  the  control  of  the  will.""  If  there  is  one 
characteristic  of  New  England  theology  more  prominent  than 
any  other,  it  is  opposition  to  these  principles.  The  world-wide 
fame  of  President  Edwards  as  a  theologian,  rests  mainly  on  his 
thorough  refutation  of  them  in  the  works  we  have  already  refer- 
red to.  In  this  opposition,  Bellamy,  D wight,  and  the  other 
great  men  of  New  England  were  no  less  strenuous  than  Edwards. 

'  This,  after  all,  appears  to  us  the  most  objectionable  feature  of  this  whole  theory, 
that  it  justifies  the  use  of  language  out  of  its  established  sense.  Professor  Park  has 
openly  avowed  that  ther^  is  scarcely  any  form  of  expressing  Old-school  doctrine 
which  he' could  not  adopt. 

2  Princeton  Review,  April  1851,  p.  309. 


632      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  INTELLECT 

The  aberration  of  the  advocates  of  the  "Exercise  Scheme," 
though  it  led  them  to  a  denial  of  at  least  the  first  of  the  ahove 
principles,  was  in  the  direction  of  ultra  Calvinism.  It  was  not 
until  the  rise  of  what  is  popularly  called  New  Havenism,  that 
these  principles  were  rejected  by  any  other  class  of  New  England 
divines  reputed  orthodox.  It  is  Professor  Park,  and  not  we, 
who  is  the  assailant  of  New  England  theology;  a  fact  which  he 
will  not  be  able  to  conceal.  We  recently  heard  of  certain  Uni- 
tarian gentlemen  who  seemed  honestly  to  beUeve  that  Trinitari- 
anism  is  dying  out  in  tliis  country.  It  is  possible  that  a  similar 
hallucination  may  lead  Professor  Park  to  regard  the  little  coterie 
to  which  he  belongs  as  all  New  England. 

Again,  there  is  not  in  the  long  article  under  consideration  any 
frank  and  manly  discussion  of  principles.  His  great  object  seems 
to  be  to  elude  pursuit  by  a  copious  effusion  of  ink.  We  had  two 
leading  objects  in  our  late  review.  The  one  was  to  state  clearly 
what  it  was  our  author  proposed  to  accomplish ;  and  the  other 
was,  to  examine  the  means  by  which  he  endeavored  to  attain  his 
end.  We  endeavored  to  show  that  the  task  which  he  undertook, 
was  to  reconcile  the  two  gi'eat  conflicting  systems  of  theology, 
the  Augustinian  and  the  anti-Augustinian  ;  and  then  we  en- 
deavored to  set  forth  the  theory,  under  its  different  aspects,  by 
which  this  reconciliation  was  to  be  effected.  If  he  intended  his 
"  Comments"  to  be  an  answer  to  our  review,  it  was  incumbent 
upon  him  to  take  up  these  points.  He  should  have  proved  either 
that  we  had  not  fairly  presented  the  two  systems  of  theology  re- 
ferred to,  or  that  they  were  not  included  under  his  category  of 
allowable  creeds.  Or  if  satisfied  as  to  these  points,  he  should 
have  shown  either  that  we  misapprehended  his  theory,  or  that 
that  theory  was  philosophically  true.  So  far  as  we  can  discover, 
he  has  hardly  made  a  show  of  attempting  to  accomplish  any  one 
of  these  objects.  We  therefore  do  not  feel  it  necessary  to  pursue 
the  subject  any  further.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  our  author  did 
not  intend  his  "  Comments"  as  an  answer  ;  we  have,  of  course, 
nothing  to  say.     In  either  case  we  remain  unanswered. 

AVe  hope  the  reasons  above  given  will  satisfy  our  friends  of 
the  propriety  of  our  discontinuing  this  discussion.  We  have  one 
other,  which,  we  trust  we  may  present  without  offence.  It  is  a 
common  remark  that  a  man  never  writes  anything  well  for  which 
he   has  "  to  read  up."     Professor   Park   has   evidently   labored 


AND     THAT     OF     THE     FEELINGS.  633 

under  this  disadvantage.  Old-school  theology  is  a  new  field  to 
him  ;  and  though  he  quotes  freely  authors  of  v/hom  we,  though 
natives,  never  heard,  yet  he  is  not  at  home,  and  unavoidably 
falls  into  tlic  mistakes  which  foreigners  cannot  fail  to  commit  in 
a  strange  land.  He  does  not  understand  the  language.  He  finds 
out  "  five  meanings  of  imputation  !"  It  would  be  wearisome 
work  to  set  such  a  stranger  right  at  every  step.  We  would  fain 
part  with  our  author  on  good  terms.  We  admire  his  abilities, 
and  arc  ready  to  defer  to  him  in  his  own  department.  But  when 
he  undertakes  to  teach  Old-school  men  Old-school  theology  it  is 
very  much  like  a  Frenchman  teaching  an  Englishman  how  to 
pronounce  English.  With  the  best  intentions,  the  amiable  Gaul 
would  be  sure  to  make  sad  work  with  the  dental  aspirations. 


THE    END. 


i'if!  t.  Vi?  <;'y«'«'C,fl-i\»;^:<i.-.«' 


